(SCMP) March 13, 2017.

Lam raised the “white terror” issue on Sunday during an otherwise bland forum in which she went head-to-head for the first time with rivals John Tsang Chun-wah and Woo Kwok-hing.

One question was about concerns that “white terror” could spread all over Hong Kong as even lawmakers could face lawsuits from the chief executive, a reference to incumbent Leung Chun-ying’s legal action against pan-democrat councillor Kenneth Leung over his receipt of HK$50 million from Australian firm UGL.

Lam replied: “I have recently become a victim of white terror. Whatever I say will draw criticism on the internet. I have been prepared for that. But this kind of white terror has extended to those who support me, including [popular actress] Josephine Siao ... It drew personal attacks against her on the internet. This kind of white terror should not be tolerated.”

Last week, Siao praised Lam and thanked her for her help in charity work when Lam was social welfare director in a video uploaded on to the former chief secretary’s Facebook site.

This drew criticism of Siao, who has hearing problems, with critics saying she was getting “blind” after becoming “deaf”. Some also accused her of being “brainless” for supporting Lam.

Tsang came to the defence of Siao’s critics, saying “freedom of speech is Hong Kong’s core value.” He added: “Online comments are not white terror. There has been a series of incidents lately – everybody knows what they are – real white terror.”

He referred to media reports that Beijing was working behind the scenes to exert pressure on Election Committee members to vote for Lam.

(HKG Pao) March 9, 2017.

Carrie Lam's campaign Facebook posted a video of actress Josephine Siao Fongfong recalling how Carrie Lam helped her a decade ago to set up a charitable organization to protect children. She is just recalling some personal experiences.

As is common, hundreds of negative comments poured in. The gentler comments were "I am very disappointed in you, Siao Fong Fong" and "When you're old, you become stupid. There is no cure for it." Even "Who the fuck does she think she is? I don't think that she has ever accomplished anything" and "dog slave" were relatively mild by comparison. The nastiest comments refers to her hearing problems: "I thought that she was just deaf, but now I learn that she is blind"; "she is not just deaf -- she has eye sockets but no eyeballs in them"; "deaf, blind, dumb and now even dumber."

One commentator wrote: "Siao Fongfong joined the cheering squad for 689 v2.0 who has been destroying procedural justice in Hong Kong for the past several years. The people of Hong Kong have finally seen the ugliness behind your human face."

Internet comments:

- "Who the fuck does she think she is? I don't think that she has ever accomplished anything." Is this the "sincere statement of fact" that John Tsang so embraces? The writing on the subway wall and tenement halls? Well, here are some of the things that she has done (Wikipedia):

- By comparison, for services to the British Empire from 1982 to 1997, John Tsang received no mentions, honors or medals (aka "soda water bottle caps") of any sort. So who "hasn't ever accomplished anything"?

- (Headline Daily) Carrie Lam said: "I don't have a problem with the attacks and smears against myself. But here is someone who is completely innocent, and only wants to express her views based upon her personal knowledge. She has now drawn all manners of irrational and insulting comments ... I will let the public decide whether Hong Kong society should accept, praise and support these ways of expression of opinion."

At the Professional Teachers Forum, John Tsang held a different opinion. He said that Internet comments "are not White Terror. Recently a lot of things have happened. Everybody knows what they are. Those things are the real White Terror." He added: "Internet comments are often sincere replies. Young people see certain things, they want to express their views and they post onto to the Internet. They don't want to go after certain people. It would be White Terror if you suppress this sort of thing."

- The golden rule here is "Freedom of Speech" = "The right to insult/abuse other people." So you should just Shut The Fuck Up!

- Using your own freedom of speech to attack other people's freedom of speech means that there is no freedom of speech.

- John Tsang meant to say: When someone calls a 70-year-old grandma with hearing impairment "deaf, dumb and demented", that speaker should be respected for sincerely making a statement of fact. In other words, John Tsang sincerely thinks that it is a fact that Josephine Siao Fongfong is "deaf, dumb and demented."

- John Tsang quoted Paul Simon's <Sound of Silence> again: "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls." He laughed and said that the walls of the subway in Hong Kong are very clean, because the Internet has become the "subway wall." On the Internet, one can find very wise words. One must pay attention in order to understand how young people feel and think.

- "Recently a lot of things have happened. Everybody knows what they are." Hey, buddy, it turns out on the Internet, nobody knows what you mean. What is this 'they'? Can you explain? Do you mean "cyberbullying a 70-year-old woman with hearing impairment"? The kidnapping of the five Causeway Bay booksellers? The threat to arrest director Ko Chi-sum for daring to use the term "dog judge"? The spate of street crimes committed by fake South Asian asylum seekers?

- Once upon a time, "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung asked for tolerance for Szeto Wah's position on constitutional reform, because Szeto Wah has a brain tumor.

- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 14, 2017.

This past Sunday, the Professional Teachers Union hosted a Chief Executive election forum. The attendees were mostly John Tsang fans, so this was safe for John Tsang to attend.

During the meeting, someone brought up the topic of White Terror. Carrie Lam said that she is keenly aware, because the White Terror incidents against her are endless.

First of all, the Electors who nominated Carrie Lam were enumerated together with their respective companies and locations, with the hint that everybody should cause trouble there, such as by reporting false violations to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the Fire Services Department, or to place false food delivery orders ...

The movie queen Josephine Siao Fongfong made a video for Carrie Lam and was pilloried: "Grandma Fongfong should die as quickly as possible, so that she won't harm the next generation!" "Drop dead! I knew that you are deaf, but I didn't expect that you are also stupid!" "I only thought that you are deaf, but it turns out that you are blind as well!" "There is no cure for the simplemindedness of Fongfong. When she was young, she was fooled/deceived by Patrick Tse; when she became old, she was fooled/deceived by Sai Wan (China Liaison Office)." There are too many of these vicious remarks to be enumerated. These cyberbullies not only cursed out Siao Fongfong, but they also joked about her hearing impairment. The most shocking of all was the response of HEA Tsang: "Internet comments are sincere words. Young people are merely expressing their opinions on the Internet ..." So it turns out that John Tsang supports cyberbullying. Our future Chief Executive appreciates vicious scorning and supports discrimination against physically handicapped persons.

John Tsang believes that "Elder Sister Fongfong is deaf, blind and dumb" is a statement of fact; and "Those parents who support Carrie Lam to become Chief Executive will find their children are the next to jump off the building" is merely an expression of opinion and a statement of fact; and a person can immorally heap praise upon terrorists in order to appeal to voters ...

No amount of White Terror anywhere is more terrifying than this type of unrestrained Chief Executive election terror.

- How to explain John Tsang's response?

(1) He had no idea what is happening on the Internet. He is insulated because he only reads the comments on his own Facebook/blog. His own fans fawn on him, and Carrie Lam's fans do not go there to post nasty comments.

(2) He does not read the comments on Carrie Lam's Facebook. He has no idea what his own supporters are doing over there.

(3) He does read the comments on Carrie Lam's Facebook. He knows what his own supporters are doing over there. He either approves of what they are doing and/or he doesn't care one way or the other and/or he is too afraid to ask them to cease and desist because these so-called supporters of his may turn on him instead.

It does not matter which is right, because they all say that he is not the Chief Executive who will mend social rifts. He is creating more social hostility, both actively and passively.

- (Economic Times) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. October 13, 2017.

The audience which attended the forum are teachers. But what I saw was a Yellow Terror show. When HEA Tsang said that he approved of the White Terror attacks against Carrie Lam and her supporters, the teachers responded with thunderous cheers and clapping. Is this what educators do? Isn't it scary that children are being educated by such people?

- Perhaps this explains why Carrie Lam did not want to have a Facebook previously. In the Yellow Ribbon world, Facebook is not a communication tool; it is a place to vent your venom.

- Everybody is talking about White Terror, as if they know what they are talking about. Well, they can't even agree on the definition of White Terror, so what is there to talk about? Here are the better known White Terrors in history:

(Oxford Dictionaries) White Terror: Any of various periods of violent repression, especially one led by conservative or reactionary forces against a communist or left-wing regime.

(Wikipeida) White Terror (Taiwan): The term "White Terror" in its broadest meaning refers to the entire period from 1947 to 1987. Around 140,000 Taiwanese were imprisoned during this period, of which from about 3,000 to 4,000 were executed for their real or perceived opposition to the Kuomintang (KMT, Chinese Nationalist Party) government led by Chiang Kai-shek. Most actual prosecutions, though, took place in 1950–1952. Most of those prosecuted were labeled by the Kuomintang as "bandit spies" (匪諜), meaning spies for Chinese communists, and punished as such. The KMT imprisoned mostly Taiwan's intellectual and social elite out of fear that they might resist KMT rule or sympathize with communism.

(Alpha History) The Shanghai Massacre. In April 1927 Guomindang forces, aided by urban gangsters and warlord militia, attacked members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Shanghai. Hundreds of communists were rounded up, arrested and tortured; most were executed or assassinated. The Shanghai Massacre or ‘April 12th Incident’, as it is sometimes called, was a pivotal moment in the Chinese Revolution. It triggered a nationwide purge of communists from the Guomindang and years of anti-communist violence, dubbed the ‘White Terror’.

(Wikipedia) First White Terror: The term White Terror describes a period of the French Revolution during which a wave of violent attacks swept across much of France in 1795. The victims of this violence were people identified as being associated with the Reign of Terror - followers of Robespierre and Marat, and members of local Jacobin clubs. The violence was perpetrated primarily by those whose relatives or associates had been victims of the Great Terror, or whose lives and livelihoods had been threatened by the government and its supporters. The White Terror was essentially a series of unco-ordinated attacks by local activists who shared common perspectives but no central organisation. The name 'White Terror' derives from the white cockades worn in the hats of royalists.

(Wikipedia) Francoist Repression: In Spain, La Represión Franquista (“Francoist Repression”) also known as the White Terror was the series of acts of politically motivated violence, rape, and other crimes committed by the Nationalist movement during the Spanish Civil War (17 July 1936 to 1 April 1939) and during the first decade of Francisco Franco's dictatorship (1 October 1936 – 20 November 1975). The mass killings of the Spanish Republican loyalists, which included Popular Front adherents, liberals, Socialists, Trotskyists, Communists, anarchists, Protestants, freethinkers, intellectuals and, among other things, people branded as Catalan and Basque separatists and Freemasons, occurred from the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, in July 1936, and continued unabated until 1945. Estimates of the White Terror's death toll range from 150,000 to 400,000 people.

(Wikipedia) White Terror (Hungary): The White Terror in Hungary was a two-year period (1919–1921) of repressive violence by counter-revolutionary soldiers, with the intent of crushing any vestige of Hungary’s brief Communist state. Many of the victims of the White Terror were Jewish.

(CNN) February 8, 2017.

Trevor Noah began by playing the recent clip of Trump telling military personnel that the “dishonest media” is actively refusing to report on terror attacks. As for the list of “underreported” terror attacks provided by the White House, it contained high-profile incidents like the ones in San Bernardino, Paris, Nice, and Orlando. “But like an Ashy Knees Anonymous meeting, there were no white people in it,” Noah joked.

Left off the list were Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof, Planned Parenthood shooter Robert Dear, and any other attacks committed by white Christians. “It’s not like the Trump people didn’t see these attacks, they just don’t like to talk about them,” Noah said, pointing to last week’s attack on a Quebec mosque as a prime example. Press secretary Sean Spicer was happy to talk about the Quebec shooting when it was believed to be committed by a Moroccan Muslim shooter, but once it turned out to be a white extremist, he had nothing to say. Trump himself never said one word about it in public.

Summing up the Trump administration’s perspective, Noah said, “When a Muslim person commits terror, it’s part of a deadly conspiracy, but when white extremists commit acts of terror over and over again, that’s merely a continuing series of isolated events.”

Noah then called a report stating Trump plans to focus the country’s counterterrorism campaign solely on Islamic terrorism “the most disgusting part of all of this.” After declaring “America first,” he said Trump is “ignoring all the hard-working white American terrorists” out there.

Afterwards, Carrie Lam said that she had not checked a dictionary beforehand. But she believes that certain speeches that threaten or insult people should be considered White Terror. She thinks that society should think about whether such speeches are appropriate or not.

- I think that it would be fair to say that if you can brandish the term White Terror while it is happening, then it cannot be White Terror. During the various instances of White Terror (China, Taiwan, France, Spain, Hungary, etc), you would be executed/assassinated if you openly articulate your opposition to the White Terror.

- John Tsang said that the "real white terror" is the media reports that Beijing was working behind the scenes to exert pressure on Election Committee members to vote for Carrie Lam. This is an insult to all the victims of White Terror in Republican China, Taiwan, France, Russia, Hungary, Spain, Greece, etc. This is a mistake just like the policeman who compared the situation of the Hong Kong Police to Jews in Germany, or the Liberal Studies teacher who compared the Hong Kong Police to Nazi Storm Troopers. The original case was a tragedy, but the comparative case is farcical.

- This is similar to the Localist cry that Hong Kong is being colonized by China and that they would rather have the British colonial administration back in charge. Do you even know what a colonial empire actually does? Here are the Ten Most Evil Empires in History, with number 1 being the British empire.

- (SCMP) In Hong Kong, ‘white terror’ is whatever you want it to be. By Michael Chugani. March 14, 2017.

What exactly is white terror? Don’t ask. Just remember that in Hong Kong, its historical meaning of political jailings and heads being lopped off has no relevance. Here, its meaning is ever-shifting. It can mean whatever you want. Former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang, our self-proclaimed media freedom defender, cried foul two years ago when the media revealed that Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai Chee-ying had given her a HK$3 million donation. She termed the revelation white terror.

Democracy camp stalwart Martin Lee Chu-ming likewise called it white terror when it was revealed that he too had received money from Lai. It was white terror when the left-wing media assailed former University of Hong Kong law dean Johannes Chan Man-mun as being unfit to be the school’s pro-vice-chancellor.

So, what is not white terror? Well, it is not white terror when you want it to be free speech. Chief executive hopeful Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor learned that the hard way last Sunday during a forum for the three candidates. Foolishly trying to mimic the tactics of hypocrites, she described as white terror the sickening online attacks on her supporter Josephine Siao Fong-fong, an icon of Hong Kong’s golden age of Cantonese cinema.

Rival candidate John Tsang Chun-wah immediately mocked Lam, describing the attacks as free speech rather than white terror. The audience of mostly Tsang supporters applauded. Let’s try to understand what kind of free speech Tsang was defending that elicited such applause. Siao suffers from a hearing problem. Netizens mocked her for not only being deaf, but blind and brainless for supporting Lam.

If that is free speech, then why was it white terror for the left-wing media to attack Johannes Chan as being unfit for the job of pro-vice-chancellor? Why was it white terror to reveal that Lai had donated money to democracy camp leaders? If John Tsang doesn’t think it is white terror for netizens to mock Siao as deaf, blind, and stupid, would he at least call it cyberbullying? Could he please clarify if cyberbullying is also free speech? Who knows, his answer may elicit more applause.

I am befuddled as to why netizens cyberbullied Siao, a jewel of Cantonese movies, for supporting Lam but applauded silver screen icon Chow Yun-fat for supporting Tsang. Could it be that Beijing prefers Lam instead of Tsang as chief executive? Go on, take a guess.

- (Cable TV) At the March 19 forum, legislative councilor Elizabeth Quat asked John Tsang: "With respect to the Siao Fongfong incident, you previously said that freedom of speech should be respected. I am concerned that cyberbullying and verbal violence is being rationalized and promoted. Have you read what they wrote about Siao Fongfong? If so, will you withdraw your previous statement?" John Tsang replied: "Of course we won't accept cyberbullying. I said that there is freedom of speech in Hong Kong, and everybody can say what they want to say. But each person should respect all persons, especially oneself. Freedom of speech is a core value of Hong Kong. It is very precious. We should treasure it."

- A string of words with no meaning whatsoever. Is this how John Tsang is going to muddle through constitutional reform, Basic Law Article 23 legislation, universal retirement protection, standard working hours, etc. Is he always going to take both sides on every issue?

- Yes, I can do one for him: "Of course, we want universal retirement protection. Senior citizens have contributed to bring Hong Kong to where it is today, and we should provide them with a comfortable retirement. But the money has to come from somewhere, and we should be careful about spending away what we don't have. Small government is a core value of Hong Kong. It is very precious. We should treasure it." In so doing, everybody will be pleased and nothing will be achieved.

- More "sincere statements of fact" about 90-year-old Sir David Akers-Jones and the importance of the Hong Kong core value of freedom of speech.


- More matter how capable or how familiar with New Territories David Akers-Jones was, the Brits simply won't promote him to become Hong Kong Governor.
Now we understand everything. Once again I admire the wisdom of the Brits when it comes to deploying people.
- David Akers-Jones. He may be the lowest-class Brit.
- What more do you want at age 90? Do you think that you were born in the 1990's? Get your pension! All the money from the prosperous Hong Kong has been spent!
- He has Alzheimer's disease. Does he recognize you?
- He wants to die now that he is old.
- Conspiring with the remnants of the British colonial administration!
- David Akers-Jones was appointed by the Chinese government which many Hongkongers believe was to protect their interests in Hong Kong. He is a typical "worn-out old battery".
- Godfather for 689 (CY Leung).

- (SpeakoutHK) March 23, 2017.

John Tsang claims that he is the only candidate who can unite Hong Kong. First, Tsang has made sure that the hearing-impaired people of Hong Kong are united against him. Now, Tsang has made sure that the blind people of Hong Kong are united against him as well.

Chong Chan Yau is a Social Welfare sub-sector elector. He is the first and only blind Administrative Officer in the history of Hong Kong. Recently, Chong declared that Woo Kwok Hing's polices on social welfare are most closely aligned to his demands and therefore he will vote for Woo. Frankly, Chong Chan Yau has the right to make his own choice which seems to be based upon reason. However, Chong is breaking ranks with the pan-democrats who are going "all-in" for John Tsang.

Immediately, Chong's Facebook was overrun with comments such as "sinner for one thousand years," "stupid idiot", "stubborn ox", "unable to see because he has no eyeballs", etc.

- What other group can John Tsang unite next? Widows? Orphans? Senior citizens who have age-related memory loss? Paraplegics?

- (Speakout HK @ YouTube) March 28, 2017.

1:24 Ronny Tong: I was very much astounded. There is a clear difference between freedom of speech and insulting other people. Freedom of speech is a human right. Insulting other people is violating the human rights of these other people. The two cannot co-exist. So you cannot beautify the insulting of others as a form of freedom of speech. Precisely because these speeches insulting other people fill up our public space, the rifts among us are deepening. Sorry, if you are the kind of person who has been doing this sort of thing, you should not blame or accuse others for not doing their utmost to mend social rifts. This responsibility is with every single person.

(Apple Daily) March 12, 2017.

The China Liaison Office is alleged to be supporting Chief Executive candidate Carrie Lam with the talk that the Central Government will not even appoint John Tsang if he is elected. National People's Congress Standing Committee member Rita Fan even said that she believes that state chairman Xi Jinping has decided to support Carrie Lam? But does the support of Carrie Lam represent the will of the Central Government/Xi Jinping?

Recently, the newspaper Pacific News which is supposed to belong to a state-owned enterprise in the Xi Jinping faction has been criticizing Carrie Lam many times. In its most recent issue, Pacific News has heaped praises on John Tsang.

Pacific News was founded in June 2015. The most recent edition was published on February 28 with a retail price of only $1. In each issue, the newspaper carries the advertisements for the China Pacific Life Insurance Company, which is a state-owned enterprise in the Xi Jinping faction.

In the most recent February 28 issue, there was an essay of almost 4,000 words. More of half of that essay was devoted to praises of John Tsang: "We were surprised to find the gentle man was so touch, connected and persistent." The remaining 1,000 words were critical of Carrie Lam, saying her tough image has lost shaped in recent years. "Although her rally featured stars, it reminds people of the Red Guard rallies during the Cultural Revolution."

Pacific News has about the same position as Sing Pao. When it was founded in June 2015, it was clearly critical of Chief Executive CY Leung intensifying conflicts and supportive of Financial Secretary being willing able to sooth the conflicts. On the next day, John Tsang got to shake hands with Xi Jinping. Over the past 11 issues, Pacific News has frequently mentioned the speeches of Xi Jinping.

(Orange News) March 12, 2017.

Solemn statement from the China Pacific Life Insurance Company, Ltd.

Recently a certain Hong Kong media outlet claimed that a newspaper Pacific News (believed to be a state-owned enterprise) has published commentary on the Hong Kong Chief Executive election, and reported that Pacific News had published our advertisements, implying thus that the articles in Pacific News represents the viewpoints of our company. Upon investigation, we determined that this report has no factual basis and has seriously damaged the reputation of our company. With respect to his, our company solemnly states the following:

1. To date, our company or any of its subsidiaries have no ownership or any other relationship with this Pacific News. We have never authorized Pacific News to publish any advertisement related to our company, and we have never submitted any articles to Pacific News.

2. Any hint that that China Pacific Life Insurance Company or any of its organizations are related to Pacific News, or any hint that the essays published in Pacific News represents the viewpoints of the state-owned enterprises of our companies is misleading.

3. Any organization or persons which use the logo of China Pacific Life Insurance Company or the name of China Pacific Life Insurance in promotions/advertisements without our group's authorization are seriously violating our rights.

4. Our group reserves the right to seek legal redress against the organizations/persons who violate our rights.

Thus stated.

China Pacific Life Insurance Group

March 12, 2017.

Internet comments:

- Who is Pacific News?

- What kind of newspaper is this? Pacificnews.com.hk has its 11 past issues available in pdf form. It has no other content such as real time news from itself or elsewhere. It has no information on physical distribution channels. It has one contact telephone number at 3525-0592. Its physical address is P.O. Box 93, Fo Tan Post Office.

- It looks like Pacificnews.com.hk was set up purely as a ruse. This leads to some interesting questions.

Q1. What is the purpose of this fake newspaper?
A: The essays support the wonderful John Tsang as the choice of Xi Jinping and denigrate Carrie Lam/CY Leung.

Q2. How much effort does it take to set up this fake newspaper?
A: There were 11 past issues. the first two issues had four pages of content and the other nine issues had eight pages of content, some of which are copied from elsewhere (e.g. comments of Deng Xiaoping). Still, someone has to write the essays on the CE election from scratch in a meaningful way, and someone has to lay out the 8 pages in newspaper format together with inserts of China Pacific Life Insurance Company advertisements. This project is going to cost at least several tens of thousands of Hong Kong dollars.

Q3. Who is behind this?
A: There is not enough information to tell. But this is someone who wants to raise John Tsang's chances at the expense of Carrie Lam by suggesting that Xi Jinping really wants John Tsang. The evidence consisted of a handshake plus the support of China Pacific Life Insurance Company.

- On the Internet, there is always freedom of expression. So let me express my view that the culprit is Apple Daily. Pacific News served no purpose because it was inaccessible -- until Apple Daily reported it. Either Apple Daily was the mastermind (and this is easy for them with their editorial resources); if not, they are at least an accessory.

 - Is Pacific News another Sing Pao? I don't think that it can be so simple. Pacific News is not sold publicly. Even though it lists a sales price of $1, you can't find it at newsstands or convenience stores. It is merely circulated within a small circle of people. As such, it may be the channel to communicate "certain directives of the highest order." The critical fact is that on the day when the electors received their notice of election, they received a mailed copy of Pacific News. This is extraordinary because Pacific News has obtained the mailing addresses of the 1,194 electors. This was not a shoddy organization! I am sure that many electors are wondering about the meaning behind this.

- I am scratching my head as I ponder how a state-owned enterprise could support John Tsang. Can there be a relationship chain such as the following?

Xi Jinping <-> Pacific Life Insurance Company <-> John Tsang <-> Civic Party/Democratic Party <-> Jimmy Lai <-> Mark Simon <-> CIA <-> Donald Trump.

Is Xi Jinping really working with Donald Trump to seal a deal over the Hong Kong Chief Executive post?

- The entire Pacific News episode is to communicate that John Tsang is the true preferred choice for Xi Jinping, as evidenced by this newspaper's apparent connection to a state-owned enterprise in Xi's faction. Of course, the 3-second handshake between Xi and Tsang was the main piece of evidence. And now Pacific News seals the deal.

(Bastille Post) Today, CY Leung was voted in as a vice-president of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. Afterwards, Xi Jinping walked over to Leung and spoke to him for more than 40 seconds (see video). It would seem that Chairman Xi was giving Leung encouragement and instructions, and Leung kept nodding his hand positively.

Does Xi Jinping prefer Carrie Lam (= CY Leung 2.0) over John Tsang? Or is John Tsang the real CY Leung v.2 instead?

Video: TVB The vote was 2066 for, 13 against, 16 abstain, 6 no action. Surely that must be a sign of approval of the CY Leung line.

- (SCMP) March 15, 2017.

The handshake and chat between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying in Beijing on Monday may have lasted for only about one minute, but a body language expert has said Xi’s facial expressions gave away his mixed confidence in Leung.

Dr Leow Chee-seng, a professor of non-verbal communication and human behaviour at the IIC University of Technology in Cambodia, was analysing footage of the exchanges between mainland and Hong Kong leaders after Leung was elevated to the post of vice-chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).

Leow, who has not followed local politics closely, believed that while Xi was showing support for Leung, deep down, he doubted Leung’s management style.

“Xi will keep a close eye on his performance. It is like parents allowing their kids to go out, but actually they are worried,” Leow said.

This was followed by a handshake and a 45-second chat with Xi.

Leow used software to dissect the video of the exchange into 0.125-second segments to observe Xi’s micro expressions.

He said that while Xi was trying to empower Leung, the president’s raised eyebrows, contracted ocular muscle around his eyes and asymmetrical smile showed he actually lacked confidence in Leung.

“The raising of his eyebrows showed concern and interest [in the initial conversation], but the slight contraction of ocular muscle revealed his doubts,” Leow said.

“Xi kept a tight-lipped and reserved smile during the chat most of the time, which indicated that he had a wait-and-see attitude,” Leow added.

The professor noted that later in the chat, Xi also tilted his head down with a smile but made no eye contact with Leung.

The president then ended the dialogue with an asymmetrical smile of “contempt”, which suggested that while he was giving authority to Leung, he was “not very confident in him”, Leow said.

Leow also studied Leung’s manner in which he walked up the stage to bow to the audience after his vice-chairmanship was confirmed.

“The even stride length showed his confidence. However, you can tell that his stress level increased when he tightened his fist before bowing to the audience,” Leow said.

(Apple Daily) Do Not Let The Conspiracy Be Realized. By Jimmy Lai (Founder of Next Media). March 12, 2017.

Chief Executive candidate Woo Kwok Hing opposed the pan-democrats giving their votes to a single individual in the first round of the Chief Executive election. He said that the votes should be divided (between himself and John Tsang). In the second round, the pan-democrats can rally around a single individual. His intention to slice away votes has become very clear. Nothing in the world stays hidden forever, as the truth is often revealed by the subconscious Freudian slip. Woo Kwok Hing had me perplexed when he came out to run for Chief Executive. After going retiring (from the Court of Appeal of the High Court), Woo Kwok Hung had not appeared to be ambitious and vigorous. So why did he make a big splash to enter the race for Chief Executive? Is this joke going too far?

His background suggests that he has no empathy with pan-democratic ideas before his retirement. Apart from pro-establishment comments, he has never said anything good about the pan-democrats. He has never contacted any pan-democrats, or joined any pan-democratic assemblies. Once he announced his intention to run in the election, his talk about pan-democratic ideas make him sound like the second coming of Leung Kwok-hung.

Even more curious is that the fact that this son Alan Woo is the member of the Y. Elites Association and the Hong Kong Youth Association which are unification organizations under the China Liaison Office. Alan Woo is also a member of the Maoming City (Guangdong province) People's Political Consultative Conference. Alan Woo works at the law firm of his uncle-in-law David Tang Kwok-keung, who is a member of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade and an arbitrator in construction and labor laws for the China Chamber of International Commerce. Those are associations which focus on China, and the law firm's business is mostly related to China.

The leader of Woo's election team is Chung Shui-chun, a former aide to legislative councilor Elizabeth Quat (DAB). By comparison, that is a minor issue. The major issue is that Woo's background suggests that he has a placid character, but he has suddenly reversed everything in his prior background. He has now picked up the Yellow Flag to fight the Red Flag! In this world, there is no love without a cause. There is no reason for a sudden switch from pro-establishment to pro-democracy. Our old warhorse has decided to come out to slice away votes because he loves his son. That is fair enough. But we cannot regard him as a pan-democrat!

Why was CY Leung ordered not to run for re-election? It was not because he performed poorly! No, he manipulated Hong Kong independence, giving the excuse to amend the Basic Law. He patiently waited on the leaderless pan-democrats to implode and then he wrecked the Umbrella Revolution. He performed magnificently. I was somewhat surprised when he declined to run for re-election. But I understood upon further reflection. At a dinner, I told Martin Lee, Albert Ho and Lee Wing-tat that Leung will get a promotion as a reward. Indeed, even before he left the Chief Executive post, the word is that he will become a vice-president of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

Given Leung's formidable accomplishments, why was he not allowed to run for re-election? Simply put, the Central Government was afraid that he might lose in the second round of secret balloting. Leung's hate-based tactics have created social rifts, such that even the pro-establishment tycoons hate him. Over the past several years, many influential persons have complained to Beijing about him. So even the Central Government is unsure whether they can totally control the votes. With CY 2.0, the Central Government will have fewer worries. But in order to guarantee the election of CY 2.0, the Central Government got Woo Kwok Hing to come out and pose as a pan-democrat so that the naïve pan-democrats will route some of their votes to the deceptive Woo.

Conspiracy theory! Fat Guy Lai has so many conspiracy theories running inside his head! I had dinner with Stephen Siu the other day. He said: "I don't believe in conspiracy theories!" Huh? Stephen Siu knows all about Chinese history and he can rattle off modern history even in his dreams. But he doesn't believe in conspiracy theories. Is this too profound? In politics, anything goes. I believe that authoritarian politics is dirty and disgusting, and anything goes. Stephen Siu may have his reasons, but I am merely convinced by the facts.

Whether in the District Council or Legislative Council election, which pan-democrats in any district have not encountered the sudden emergence of 'pan-democratic' opponents who come out to make passionate and stirring presentations to excite people? The newcomers slice away a number of votes from voters who were unaware of what is going on. So what if they lose their elections? They will have succeeded in slicing some votes away. Afterwards they melt away without a trace! These fake 'pan-democratic' candidates are part of the conspiracy set up by the Central Government. How can there not be a conspiracy? Slicing away votes is Standard Operation Procedure for the Central Government. Look at the Hong Kong independence promulgators such as Raymond Wong Yuk-man and Wan Chin. After the election, the Central Government puts the leashes back on and do you hear them talking about Hong Kong independence anymore? Where is Hong Kong independence vanguard Edward Leung today? Weren't Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-heng so vocal in opposing the Central Government before, but where have they gone now? Are they resisting shoulder to shoulder with the pan-democrats? [Sigh] If the Central Government sends out fake 'pan-democrats' in the District Council elections, how can they not also slice away votes in the Chief Executive election? Do not treat big robbers as small robbers, and small robbers as non-criminals. They are all criminals. Please do not be so naïve. They are running conspiracies everywhere. We need to get used to it.

Speaking of naïveté, the editor of the commentary section in Apple Daily is truly naïve. Hon Lin-shan is clearly a Chinese Communist mole, but his specious essays are occasionally published there. Why? Does freedom of speech mean that we don't have to distinguish between right versus wrong anymore? "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung entered the Chief Executive election because he wanted to raise the democracy banner and affirm his ideas. Hon Lin-shan wrote in Apple Daily that the pan-democrats must rally to support Long Hair or else they will end up like the Democratic Party marching into the China Liaison Office to work out a compromise which castrated and divided the forces of democracy. Nonsense! Of course, he wants the pan-democrats to waste their votes alongside Long Hair and blow away whatever remaining means of resistance left. Indeed, ideas are important. But if our votes can be used for resistance, or even reverse the course of events, then by what right do we have not to use our votes in a pragmatic manner? If we divide our votes or if we cast our votes for the purposeless Long Lai, we are not promulgating democratic ideas. Instead we are merely showing that we pan-democrats are arrogant, irresponsible and detached from reality. Yes, we are standing on a pile of eggs. But these eggs were not left under the high wall in order to show people how tragic and noble our cause is or how we stand on high moral grounds. No, these eggs are the sole weapons of resistance in our hands. They are not there to be shown off; they are there to be thrown at the high wall in resistance. Yes, it may be that our resistance is futile. But at least it is resistance. The only thing that we can do is to resist. We will resist with whatever strength that we have left.

Benny Tai came out to fight for democracy for the people of Hong Kong. He did it solely in order to contribute his lot to society. He is someone whom I admire I lot. He is a good example of resisting the powers-that-be. Good people often are pure at heart. But sometimes being too pure could lead a person to become too naïve and thus end up doing bad things. His intentions with PopVote are very good. But has he thought about what happens if the Central Government mobilizes people to vote for Woo Kwok Hing? Must the pan-democrats follow the voting results and cast all their votes for Woo Kwok Hing? If so, we would be accomplices in the vote-slicing conspiracy of the Central Government. Why should we give a conspiracy a chance for no good reason?

(The Standard) March 13, 2017.

It's a common establishment trick to support obscure candidates to split the votes of pan-democrats in the District Council and Legislative Council elections to increase the chances of its own people.

But it would be too far-fetched to generalize this to call retired judge Woo Kwok-hing a mole, and radical activist James Hon Lin-shan an associate of communists, simply because of Woo's candidacy, and Hon's backing for dissident lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung in running in the Chief Executive election.

However, Next Media boss Jimmy Lai Chi-ying made precisely those allegations, decrying Woo - who is now one of the three official CE candidates - and Hon, who is urging pan-democrats in the Election Committee to abstain from voting for anyone, after "Long Hair" quickly dropped out of the race.

Lai's claim that Woo and Hon are communist accomplices is serious. Without evidence, it's nothing more than just another conspiracy theory based on paranoia or hallucinations.

Yesterday, Woo, John Tsang Chun- wah and Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor participated in a forum to trade barbs over policy issues. Lai's criticism appeared in his Apple Daily publication on the same day. That couldn't have been coincidental.

The media magnate based his inference about Woo from the retired judge's son Alan, saying the younger Woo is a member of the China People's Consultative Conference of Maoming municipality, as well as the Hong Kong United Youth Association, and Y.Elites Association that have strong mainland connections.

Lai also cast aspersions on Alan Woo's uncle David Tang Kwok-keung's links to some mainland trade bodies, to fortify his claim that Woo was a communist mole - planted to split the 325 pan- democratic votes.

Lai didn't refer to Tsang by name, but it goes without saying he fears Woo will split the pan-dem votes at the expense of the mustachioed one, who has Lai's backing for the CE's post. Woo has dismissed the claim as "nonsense," describing it as a trait reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution. Lai has gone too far to rest his assertions on the background of family members. It's ironic that as he criticized the communists, he was employing the tricks that they're notorious for.

Then, just who is Hon whom Lai has decried so fiercely? Hon is a retired secondary school teacher. He gained popularity in 2012 at the height of the vigorous protests against national education, during which he went on a hunger strike for 171 hours, to be the last one to quit the protest.

The accusation that he's a Beijing agent simply flies in the face of the facts - a theory without substance or evidence.

As Lai slammed his own editorial department at Apply Daily for running Hon's commentary in the opinion section, could he be guilty of adopting Chairman Mao Zedong's tactic of condemning his own comrades for betraying him?

Then, could there be more to Lai's outburst?

It may be an attempt to rescue Tsang's election bid, for which support may be dissipating more quickly than feared. But no matter how desperate Lai may be in his personal crusade to save the former financial secretary from certain defeat, it's grossly unfair for him to label whoever is standing in his way a communist associate.

(EJ Insight) Why pan-democrats still support Tsang instead of Woo. By Wong On-yin. March 15, 2017.

Just two weeks ago, retired judge Woo Kwok-hing was still very much in the pan-democrats’ favor, and thanks to their endorsement, he was able to secure his candidacy without having to tap into pro-establishment votes.

However, things suddenly took a nasty twist. A media tycoon, who is also the chief political donor of the pan-democrats, recently wrote a newspaper article lashing out at Woo, referring to him as the “fifth columnist” working for the Communist Party and blaming him for sabotaging the democratic cause.

His article was immediately followed by a stampede of his pan-democratic flunkeys and hangers-on, who echoed his accusations against Woo.

The candidate found himself suddenly and unexpectedly coming under fire from people who had treated him as an ally just a week ago.

But Woo proved himself to be far from being a pushover and refuted the fabricated accusations point by point in a laid-back but highly convincing and witty way.

The latest onslaught mounted by the pan-democrats and their big tycoon boss against Woo reminds me of an ancient Chinese proverb: “A person who carries a piece of authentic jade often draws envy.”

This saying is often used in Chinese literature to refer to people who are envied by others for their gifts and talents. It strengthens my conviction that Woo is the real deal for the top job.

I can think of only one possible reason why pan-democrats are suddenly doing an about-face on Woo and mounting a ferocious mudslinging campaign against him.
It’s because Woo, whom they first considered as Plan B, has been outperforming and outsmarting their favorite Plan A, former financial secretary John Tsang Chun-wah, in every single way over the past several weeks.

As a result, Woo’s popularity is continuing to soar not only among the public but also among the pro-democracy members of the Election Committee, something that the pan-democratic mastermind didn’t expect.

Fearing that Woo’s soaring popularity might threaten John Tsang’s chances of winning, thereby jeopardizing their plan of milking Tsang for political rewards after he got elected, the desperate pan-democrats are making a last-ditch effort to resuscitate Tsang’s campaign and boost his odds by smearing Woo.

Contrary to the views of other political commentators, I believe former chief secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor is far from being able to seal her victory. In fact, her odds of winning are diminishing.

Notice that throughout the recent annual meetings of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, none of the Beijing leaders had stepped forward and publicly rooted for Lam as expected, not to mention that Lam had only received 579 nominations.

You can tell Beijing still has reservations about her.

There is also talk among members of the pro-establishment camp that they will be allowed a relatively higher degree of freedom when casting their votes this time around.

It is very likely many of those who were forced to endorse Carrie Lam during the nomination period may switch their support to either Tsang or Woo on election day.
That said, unlike what most political pundits think, I believe this CE election is more likely to be a battle between Tsang and Woo than between Tsang and Lam.
Recent developments only prove my point.

For our Beijing leaders, Woo is definitely a viable choice. By steering a middle course between John Tsang and Carrie Lam and choosing Woo to be the next chief executive, the central authorities can avoid the risk of alienating Beijing’s Liaison Office and the diehard leftists in Hong Kong, who have remained the staunchest supporters of Carrie Lam and deeply suspicious of Tsang.

As far as the poor and desperate pan-democrats are concerned, for now they are simply left with no choice but to continue to support John Tsang, despite the fact that they might be getting increasingly aware that they could be betting on the wrong horse.
And since Tsang is their media tycoon boss’s top favorite, they have to do as he wishes.

After all, you can’t act against the wishes of your No. 1 donor in politics.

Internet comments:

- (Bastille Post) Why did Hon Lin-shan anger Jimmy Lai? Mainly because Han supported the candidacy of "Long Hair" Leung Kwok-hung. When Leung abandoned his campaign, Han declared the three official nominees (John Tsang, Carrie Lam, Woo Kwok Hing) are all pro-establishment and do not deserve any support. This is the viewpoint of the radical pan-democrats and is unsurprising. But Jimmy Lai found this intolerable, such that anyone who opposes giving all 326 pan-democratic votes to John Tsang must be a Chinese Communist mole. How much Hon Lin-shan has Jimmy Lai read? This is the man who even attends the Falun Gong forum against Chinese Communist live physical organ thefts. If Han is a Chinese Communist mole, then there must be about 7.3 million Chinese Communist moles in Hong Kong. I am curious if the Apple Daily commentary section will continue to feature Hon Lin-shan's essays.

- (HKG Pao) Oh, this is so bizarre. If Woo Kwok Hing was "suddenly democratic", then what is John Tsang? As Financial Secretary, John Tsang was a close-fisted miser who did nothing to benefit the masses. Once he entered the Chief Executive race, he declared that he will stop the TSA and mend social rifts. He also suddenly discovered a conscience and said that he will try to push for Article 23 legislation. What happens when HEA Tsang does not HEA anymore? Why this sudden and total reversal of his prior background? Let me cite Jimmy Lai's conspiracy theory and give you this obvious conclusion: "John Tsang entered the Chief Executive election in order to slice votes away!"

This leads to some obvious questions, which have some obvious answers.

Q1: Whose votes is John Tsang slicing away?
A: There are three candidates: Carrie Lam is pro-establishment with all her 580 nominations coming from pro-establishment electors. John Tsang had 80% pro-democracy nominations and Woo Kwok-hing had 100% pro-democracy nominations. John Tsang cannot be slicing pan-democratic votes away from Carrie Lam. Therefore John Tsang is slicing votes away from Woo Kwok Hing.

Q2. For whom is John Tsang working?
A: If John Tsang is slicing votes away from the 'pan-democrat' candidate Woo Kwok Hing, then he must be a Chinese Communist mole.
[Note: The possibility cannot be excluded that a Chinese Communist mole may not be aware that he/she is working as a Chinese Communist mole. In fact, this is the most effective of Chinese Communist moles.]

Q3. Is it possible for both John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing to be Chinese Communist moles?
A: Both John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing are under clouds of suspicion because their current postures are completely at odds with their prior backgrounds. It is entirely possible that both are Chinese Communist moles because the Chinese Communists want to create the impression of a vigorous Chief Executive election whose ending was scripted by them many months ago. Their worst fear was that the Chief Executive election had only one pro-establishment candidate and the pan-democrats would boycott the process altogether.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 13, 2017. Woo Kwok-hing said that Jimmy Lai had "charged him with two big crimes." Woo said about rival John Tsang: "When a candidate's wife and children have American passports, does this mean that he was sent by the CIA? When a candidate's worked previously as the private secretary to the last British colonial governor, does this mean that he is a British spy? In English, this is called baloney. In Cantonese, this is called nonsense." Woo said that he is not trying to slice away votes; instead he is trying to get as many votes as possible for himself. "I would never say that Mr. Tsang is slicing away my votes."

- (Wen Wei Po) March 13, 2017. Hon Lin-shan has rebutted on the Internet: "A certain local pro-democracy/pro-freedom-of-speech newspaper owner is pretty scary when he wants to support a certain pro-establishment Chief Executive candidate." Han said that a veteran media worker such as Jimmy Lai ought to know that it is a grave crime to interfere with editorial independence. "Right now, he is openly criticizing his own employee. This shows that Mr. Lai no longer knows right from wrong. He is letting emotions rule over reason. This is regrettable ... this time, Boss Lai has smeared me and led the way in violating media ethics and suppressing freedom of speech. Will this cause his employees to become nervous, such that they will sent all submissions to their boss to pre-screen and decide whether to publish or not?

- (Wen Wei Po) March 13, 2017. Jimmy Lai says that his conspiracy theories are not just wild ideas spinning inside his head. Instead, he based his theories on facts.

Let us look at the facts.

In 2011, a Foxy document was published showing that Next Media founder Jimmy Lai donated more than $10 million each to the Democratic Party and the Civic Party between 2006 and 2010. In 2014, a series of files were published on the Internet, showing that Jimmy Lai contributed 23 sums of money totally more than HK$40 million between April 2012 and July 2014 to individuals/organizations including the Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party and the League of Social Democrats.

Previously during John Tsang's nine years as Financial Secretary, Next Media (including Apple Daily and Next Magazine) called Tsang an incompetent miser who regularly under-estimated the government budget surplus and refused to spend the accumulated surplus. Similar criticisms of John Tsang came from the pan-democratic camp (including the Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party, League of Social Democrats) during those years.

In late 2016, John Tsang resigned as Financial Secretary in order to run for Chief Executive. Next Media supported the candidacy of John Tsang, and they no longer criticized Tsang's record as Financial Secretary. Their support did not waver even as John Tsang expressed support for Basic Law Article 23 legislation and constitutional reform based upon the NPCSC's August 31st framework, both of which are against the core pan-democratic values.

During the nomination phase, the Democratic Party said that their seven legislators will nominate John Tsang. They have also announced that they will do the same during the voting phase. This means that all seven Democratic Party legislators will vote for John Tsang.

As for the Civic Party, member Dennis Kwok spoke for Democracy 300+ in favor of John Tsang. When Woo Kwok Hing proposed that the pan-democrats should split their votes between himself and Tsang, Kwok said that he disagreed. Kwok said "We should vote for the candidate who can best unite the people of Hong Kong"; "I call on Woo to listen to what Democracy 300+ decided upon at our meeting the other day." Kwok also asked Woo to "recognize the situation" and "see where he stands." Civic Party chairman Alan Leong wrote on Facebook to those pan-democratic electors who don't want to vote for a single candidate: "You come out and explain yourself to your voters and to the people of Hong Kong, and then accept the political consequences!"

Is it a conspiracy theory to say that there is a Democratic Common Sovereign who is throwing money around to make politicians do his biding in spite of their stated principles of democracy?

- Bwahhhh! A media organization owner is criticizing what his newspaper section editor chooses to publish! What does the Journalists Association have to say about this egregious violation of editorial independence? Absolutely nothing, of course.

If the same thing happens with the Malaysian owner of Ming Pao, it will be hell to pay!

- Why are there double standards? Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE UNIVERSAL VALUES OPENNESS TRANSPARENCY. Or something.

- How many moles are there under the bed?

- (Bastille Post) March 13, 2017. First we have Jimmy Lai popping out to attack Woo Kwok Hing and Hon Lin-shan for taking votes away from John Tsang. Next we have the Professional Teachers Union promising that their 35 votes will go to a single candidate. This is in spite of the fact that Carrie Lam's policy platform with an increased $5 billion for education would have been better for contract teachers and kindergarten teachers. Can you sense the panic in the air?

Back in the beginning, the mainstream pan-democrats felt that John Tsang can get more than one hundred votes from the Commerce/Industry sector and cost Carrie Lam her victory. But now John Tsang is facing pressure from both ends. On on hand, the radical pan-democrats such as Hon Lin-shan are refusing to vote for these candidates because they consider all three of them to be pro-establishment. On the other hand, the Commerce/Industry sector can see the writing on the war due to recent developments (e.g. the case of Xiao Jinahua; Zhang Dejiang's meetings; Gu Zhuoheng's INTERPOL Red Notice; CY Leung appointment as CPPCC vice-chairman). The theory of Two Centrals is now thoroughly bankrupt, so that the only choices are: Support the Central Government or oppose the Central Government. With two weeks left until the election, there is not going to be any reversal (as the Central Government did in switching from Henry Tang to CY Leung in 2012). So why would a businessman sidle up to John Tsang whom the Central Government does not endorse and whose pan-democratic camp is falling apart?

- (Wen Wei Po) March 15, 2017. Here are Apple Daily's appraisals of the government budget proposals over the nine years of Financial Secretary John Tsang:

2008: Money Lord gives out money until a deficit is hit; $115.6 billion surplus this year, $7.5 billion deficit next year

2009: Financial Secretary John Tsang handed out candies until a deficit was hit; this year he became a miser. Yesterday's budget proposal lacked anything that could relieve livelihood hardships

2010: Government budget not useful, John Tsang waiting to get off work; the usual tax and rate rebates are no help for resolution of deep conflicts

2011: Surplus of $71.3 billion but still no tax refunds; grassroots complain that they can't keep up with inflation; the whole city wants to beat up John Tsang. Money Lord John Tsang throws $6,000 at everyone in order to deflect attention, so that nobody pays attention that he is so lay in preparing the budget. $6,000 cannot cover up the fact that this lame-duck government has come out with the most short-sighted and bad budge in history. Apart from protesting, we should holler in anger. Doling out money should win applause, but people are actually even more upset. It is regrettable that the Hong Kong government and Financial Secretary John Tsang were able to accomplish the impossible.

2012: The budget was the standard fare over the last five years; John Tsang HEA to the very end. Same thing over five days; this is the best summation of Financial Secretary's five budgets over the past 5 years ... legislators say that his farewell budget was the same conservative: he came lazily, and he went lazily. Labour Party legislator Lee Cheuk-yan said that the John Tsang's budgets were lousy over all the years: "I hope that you won't HEA during the next administration, or else the citizens will have no luck."

2013: "You may be in deep trouble, but I will continue to HEA as Financial Secretary!" "Word play to increase taxes; refuse to introduce universal retirement protection; John Tsang forwards preventative budget." "Everybody curses the Financial Secretary for being a miser; Sze Wing Ching: He is being over-cautious now."

2014: John Tsang prepared seven budgets already, and this one gets the poorest score. He is cursed out as a miser. The estimates were wrong every single year. No relief in sight; grassroots raise fingers. John Tsang persist with estimation error: last year he estimated a $4.9 billion deficit for this year, which turned out to be a $12 billion surplus. Reserves increased to $7.459 trillion, or 21 months of government operations.

2015: John Tsang issues his third budget during the CY Leung administration; as in the past, he was wrong in his estimates of revenue/expenditure. Financial Secretary Mr. John Tsang's new budget makes no mention of how to deal with the housing market, especially the worries over the rapid rise in the prices for small apartment units; concerns that the government is ignoring this biggest threat to economic and financial safety.

2016: Money Lord hands out candies of $38.8 billion; salary tax refunded 75% up to $20,000. "The budget was intended to give to the people of Hong Kong." Money Lord condemns violence but does not avoid responsibility: scholar says that Tsang is better than CY Leung. Talks about Localists is regarded as declaration to enter the Chief Executive election.

- (SCMP) It seems the rules are different for Apple Daily. By Alex Lo. March 15, 2017.

In this day and age in Hong Kong, if the owner of a media outlet openly castigates his editorial staff for airing the opinions of someone he finds objectionable, pan-democratic groups like the Civic Party and the Journalists Association would be jumping up and down, shouting about editorial interference and censorship.

But not if it’s by one of their own, especially if that person happens to be a sugar-daddy who has secretly funded so many pan-democratic political parties over so many years.

Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, the pernicious boss of Next Media and Apple Daily, has openly criticised his fruity editors for running commentaries by retired teacher and pro-democracy activist James Hon Lin-shan. Without a shred of evidence, Lai has accused, in his own newspaper, Hon and chief executive hopeful Woo Kwok-hing of being secret agents of Beijing. The accusations are absurd, the outcome of paranoia among some radical groups who think Woo is being fielded as a candidate in the election to steal votes from John Tsang Chun-wah, their favoured candidate. It’s called “vote-snatching”, which for some pan-dems seems to mean no other candidates should run other than the ones they support.

Lai has also criticised fellow activists “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and Benny Tai Yiu-ting for being politically naive. No doubt Lai is the only one who knows what he is doing.

I have no idea why so many pan-dems are fixated on Tsang. It’s probably only because Beijing doesn’t seem to want him as chief executive. But whatever Tsang is, he is not a pan-democrat.

Woo had an unimpeachable career as a high court judge, and was the head of numerous high-profile public commissions and inquiries, including those into the deadly Garley building fire and academic freedom. You can question his leadership ability, but not his integrity.

As for Hon, he has been a member of the pro-democracy Professional Teachers’ Union and taken part in every mass protest since the furore over national education in 2012. I can’t think of an activist more ideologically aligned with the editorial line of Apple Daily, at least until the boss has said otherwise.

So where’s the outrage? Where are our freedom lovers, the usual suspects who cry censorship and press oppression at the drop of a hat? Oh wait, it’s Lai and Apple, and they always get a free pass.

- Legislator Fernando Chiu-hung Cheung's Facebook

Why am I swearing not to support John Tsang under any circumstance?
As an Elector, I will state first that I absolutely won't support Carrie Lam. But I also absolutely won't support John Tsang. Here are my reasons:
1. John Tsang adheres to the August 31st resolution with zero will to resist;
2. John Tsang will push for Article 23 legislation;
3. Even with the heavy surplus, John Tsang ordered all government departments to cut back expenditure by 2% within three years;
4. The Hong Kong government has reserves of more than 3 trillion. How much reserves does Hong Kong need? John Tsang said: "The more the better."
5. John Tsang said: "You always agree with our boss." How can a person who only knows to obey his boss and sail whichever way the wind blows become a leader?
As one can imagine, Hong Kong under John Tsang will continue to have wealth inequality and people won't be able to make a living!

A small number of the 326 Democracy 300+ votes will elude John Tsang. If Tsang wants to win, he is going to need even more Commerce/Industry sector support.

- With the big financier making his position loud and clear, his various lackeys fall into line quickly:

(RTHK via YouTube) Alan Leong, chairman of the Civic Party, recipient of millions of dollars from Jimmy Lai over the years

Although the police platform of Woo Kwok Hing is more representative of the values of the democrats, based upon what we saw from our meetings with John Tsang and Woo Kwok Hing and their performances in the public forums, we feel that John Tsang is by comparison more forceful candidate to oppose Sai Wan (=China Liaison Office) perfidy and to unite Hong Kong. Therefore tonight at the expanded executive committee meeting, the Civic Party decided all our Electors will vote for John Tsang during the first round of voting on March 26. This decision does not mean that that we will let down our guards on any act of governance.

(Speakout.hk) March 15, 2017.

When you elect the Chief Executive, should you just consider political position and ignore abilities? It is no joke that Civic Party chairman Alan Leong said that they will vote for John Tsang for being the person best able to repel Sai Wan perfidy. Well, did John Tsang say that he was the best candidate to unite Hong Kong and build trust with China? Now he has been declared as the designated candidate to lead the people of Hong Kong to fight against China!

In 2014, the non-establishment camp started Occupy Central and eventually vetoed the one-person-one-vote constitutional reform. Then they erased their memories and actively participated in his small-circle election.

Even under the small-circle election system, the 1,194 electors could select a fine Chief Executive if they act responsibly. But Alan Leong is candidly telling us that they will vote for John Tsang because he is best able to fight against the Central Government. Meanwhile the other candidate Woo Kwok Hing has accomplished his historical mission and will get zero votes.

In truth, Woo Kwok Hing's policy platform is closer to the pan-democrats. As such, he should be able to gain votes from principled pan-democrats. However, Alan Leong has made it clear that Woo Kwok Hing will lose badly. For the Civic Party, abilities and policies count for zilch. The only thing that matters is "Resistance."

- If John Tsang is scraping for Commercial/Industrial sector votes, then the endorsement by the Civic Party for him because he can resist Sai Wan best is a spoiler.

- On one hand, John Tsang says that he is the best candidate possible to unite the pro-establishment and pro-democracy camps for Hong Kong. On the other hand, the Civic Party says that John Tsang is the best possible candidate to lead Hong Kong to fight against China. Who is the real John Tsang?

- How come no reporter has asked John Tsang for his thoughts on being called a Resistance Fighter by the Civic Party?

- Democracy 300+/PopVote just got tossed out of the window. The Civic Party will vote for John Tsang irregardless of the PopVote results.

- Why won't they wait for the PopVote results? It is called 'over-compensation.' Two weeks ago, Civic Party went 'all-in' to nominate Woo Kwok Hing. After the Money Man let the whole world know that there is one and only one choice: John Tsang, the Civic Party immediately jettisoned Woo Kwok Hing and went 'all-in' for John Tsang.

- Alan Leong said that the Civic Party will cast all 25 of their votes for John Tsang in the first round. He doesn't say what happens in the second round. Why? Because everybody knows that Carrie Lam will get the 600+ votes to win in the first round and there won't be a second round.

(YouTube) MTR public interest commercial: Getting frustrated about being hit or blocked by passengers with large backpacks when travelling on the MTR? Ride with manners. Please put down your large backpack, so as not to hit other passengers or block their way.

(Apple Daily) Famous Hong Kong blogger Lam Kay responded: "Let us heed the MTR's call and choose to use luggage cases (instead of backpacks). Let us all tow luggage cases! In order to protect the rights of the smugglers, the MTR senior management will not attack you. So you can feel easy about towing luggage cases! Alternately, you can also use handcarts or modified baby carriages! You also have priority to take elevators!"

(Ta Kung Pao) March 9, 2017. The Localist Action Facebook is holding a "Let us all be backpackers on MTR" action at 6pm on Sunday (March 10) at the Admiralty MTR station at the last car. They called for citizens to carry backpacks into the same subway car.


Tonight, 6pm, Admiralty Station, Tsuen Wan line, last car, we won't leave until we meet, 610pm, enter the carriage.

Meanwhile Ronald Leung of the North New Territories Parallel Trade Concern Group is holding his own event "People Towing Luggage in MTR" along the MTR East line on Friday afternoon. Leung said: "99% of students carry backpacks. The MTR is targeting them this time. How can you tolerate this? It is time to show your anger!"

(Local Press) March 10, 2017. On March 10, the Local Action spokesperson argued with the MTR employee inside the MTR station. He said that the MTR is discriminating against backpackers while rarely issuing warnings against parallel traders who tow large luggage cases. He also demanded to know that if a backpacker his backpack on the floor and it gets stolen or damaged, then how will MTR deal with it? The MTR employee said that questions can be addressed to the corporate public relations department. The Local Action spokesperson said that South Korea, Japan and other Asian regions have perfect railway setups with luggage racks in each car to place luggage. He said that MTR should reflect deeply instead of making this the responsibility of passengers.

(Oriental Daily) March 10, 2017.

At around 530pm, there were at least 10 police officers patrolling the Admiralty MTR station. At first, the Local Action Facebook told people to gather at the platform for the Tsuen Wan line. Later it was changed to the platform for the Central line. At 630pm, a bespectabled man with a backpack appeared and began to argue loudly with an MTR employee about the MTR commercial. The MTR employee advised the man to contact the corporate public relations department. There was no other supporter present.

After arguing for about 10 minutes, the man boarded the train and went to the Prince Edward MTR station. There he argued with two MTR employees about the contents of the commercial. The two MTR employees refused to answer. The man said: "It is useless to hire you people." The man proceeded next to the Kowloon Tong MTR station. There he chased after an old lady who was hauling a handcart. He said that she was a parallel trader. The old lady was able to leave with the assistance of MTR employees.

(Headline Daily) March 13, 2017.

Ronald Leung of the North Territories Parallel Trade Concern Group called for a flash demonstration at the Mong Kok MTR station to support backpackers. He showed up himself, and one other person heeded his call. The two entered the Mong Kok MTR station and took the train to the Tsim Sha Tsui MTR station. The entire action took 10 to 15 minutes.

Internet comments:

- The most popular comment was: "They need to conduct a head count at the Castle Peak Psychiatric Hospital -- one of their patients has escaped!"

- Here is a valiant warrior who had the courage and might to pick a fight with a grandma! He has made us all proud of him!

- Here was the "Local Action spokesperson" going after citizens who were towing handcarts and luggage cases. Then there was Ronald Leung who called on the people to tow handcarts and luggage cases for the same cause. Can they please coordinate their scripts? I can't do both things at the same time!

- Once upon a time, they paid $2,000 per day for Occupy Central demonstration. Today, there is a new guy in the White House. Mr. Trump wants to see quantifiable return-on-investment (ROI) and this type of thing has negative returns. The paymaster has shut off the money faucet, so nobody came today.

- Not only does this guy have time on hand to waste, but reporters were wasting their time following him around just in case something happens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cbt1BatfqNM&t=0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKkzDAJW2T8&t=0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeQ5_zaNjds&t=0s

- The "Localist Action spokesperson" asked the MTR employee about what happens if he places his backpack on the floor and it gets stolen or damaged. The MTR employee is clearly a fan of actor/singer Leon Lai, and quotes Lai's famous saying: "I am unable to answer a hypothetical question."

- The "Localist Action spokesperson" went after an old lady? How about this one? Legislator Claudia Mo Man-ching.

Note: Claudia Mo tows a luggage case for the media to take pictures. She was trying to show her opposition to mainlanders getting multiple visit visas.

- "Because Shenzhen residents can get multiple-visit visas, we Hongkongers should go out and kick any suitcase that we see on the street." I completely fail to see the chain of logic.

- (HKG Pao) In 2014, the <Shopping every day> video showed tourists towing luggage that rolled over others with utter indifference. This let to regular citizens fighting back by kicking the luggage cases. That video was shared hundreds of thousands of times as Internet users gave plenty of LIKE's. The mindset was that these Internet users regard the people who tow luggage cases as inferior beings who only know to shop every day, whereas they themselves are more civilized, better cultured and therefore superior.

That's fine.

Now we have this MTR video. Any normal person who watched it must surely know that this was light comedy to deliver a public message. A problem about public behavior was described humorously and a solution was proposed (putting the backpack on the floor). So why did some Internet users react adversely? This is because these people think that the biggest problem in Hong Kong is the people who tow luggage cases and not those who carry backpacks. "Both luggage case and backpack are large items that may interfere with others. So why only mention backpack and not also deal with luggage cases?"

I don't know which causes more aggravation than the other. I am only certain that even if the luggage cases create interference, it does not mean that backpacks don't. These are two completely different matters. To say that luggage cases are more serious and thus absolve the backpackers is making a mistake that schoolchildren often make: "Fellow student A also made the same mistake. Why am I being admonished?" Dear little friend, you get admonished when you make a mistake. Even if Fellow Students A through Z also made the same mistake, it does not mean that you are right.

- The Kowloon Tong MTR station is the interchange between the MTR East line from Hung Hom to Lo Wu and the Yau Ma Tei-Tiu King Leng line. Hundreds of people would be towing luggage and handcarts at all times of day. Of all the people, why did the "Localist Action spokesperson" have to pick a grandma? Because he knows that he can physically manhandle her?

- Here is the answer to everybody's question: Who is that man? (Post 852) April 17, 2015. 28-year-old waiter Lo Kin-man was charged with two counts of obstruction of police business when he used the light on his mobile phone to shine at the eyes of police officers during Occupy Mong Kok. Today he was found not guilty on both counts. The magistrate said while the behavior was "unnecessary, uncivilized and provocative" and caused inconvenience to the police in their line of duty, it did not constitute obstruction of police business. Afterwards, Lo said that he was delighted with the verdict.

- Did the courtroom watchers immediately take out their mobile phones and shine the lights on the magistrate?

- Lo Kin-man was the only person who answered the call of Localist Action. He is not the Facebook administrator, much less a spokesperson. Did Localist Action call the action but did not show up themselves? Or did they show up and left because there was only one person there?

- Hong Kong-style demonstration: Two demonstrators, many more photojournalists

- Compared to the Localist Action demonstration on Friday, the attendance just jumped up by 100%. Freedom is on the rise and democracy is on the march!

- The Hong Kong Politically Neutral Party Facebook

Localist leader Ronald Leung initiated a protest against the MTR video against backpackers. The peak attendance figure was 2. Our party issues the following statement:

1. Our party congratulates Mr. Leung for completing this action. This is exceptional and shows that political figures have become increasingly mature.

2. The number of attendees at this demonstration was 2. This showed that the organizers was able to hold up half the sky. Our party can sense his powerful political energy.

3. The number of protestors helped the political parties, the MTR, the media and the Hong Kong Police to count correctly, so that there are no arguments over numbers to cause social rifts and disharmony.

4. According to Ming Pao, Ronald Leung said that the success of an action must not be measured by numbers. Our party remains politically neutral on this.

5. As to whether MTR riders can carry backpacks into the trains, our party recommends MTR to encourage the backpackers to use the priority seats.

The Hong Kong Politically Neutral Party
March 13, 2017 19:35.


"The New Tibet" -- Hong Kong under the Second Colonization
Guests: Jason Chow (Hong Kong National Party spokesperson), Wong Yuan-cheung (Hong Kong Tibetan Han Cultural Association vice chairman)
Date: March 10, 2017 (Friday)
Time: 7pm-9p
Location: City University of Hong Kong, Amenities Building, Herbalgy Lecture Theatre (LT-401)

(Wen Wei Po) March 11, 2017.

The Herbalgy Lecture Theatre has more than 200 seats, but fewer than 100 persons showed up. Even so, many of these came to protest, not to listen.

Wong Yuan-cheung (Hong Kong Tibetan Han Cultural Association vice chairman) failed to show, so that left Hong Kong National Party spokesperson Jason Chow on his own.

Chow began by saying that the "Chinese government" is "eroding Tibetan culture." Someone in the audience asked him for "evidence." Chow was embarrassed, and said that this was what the western press says. As more interjections came, the organizing host said that questions should be left for the Q&A portion afterwards.

After this went on for about 20 minutes, several citizens left their seats, shouted out slogans and paraded banners such as "Tibetan independence, get out of China!" and "Say NO to Tibetan independence." Other people left angrily, which made it hard for the meeting to continue. The organizers announced a 10-minute break just 30 minutes into the meeting.

After the ten minutes, about half of the audience had gone already. About 50 or so people were left. At this time, Jason Chow switched from Tibet to Hong Kong. He said "Hong Kong's situation is the same as that of Tibet" in that they have both been re-colonized. He said that when Hong Kong middle-school students speak putonghua even outside school, it means that "Hong Kong has been culturally infiltrated by China."

At this point, several middle-aged men got up and place a banner with "Oppose Tibetan independence, oppose separatism" in front of the speakers.

With more and more people leaving and Jason Chow running out of what to say, the organizers announced that the meeting was over.

(Wen Wei Po) March 11, 2017.

Hong Kong National Party spokesperson Jason Chow was invited by the City University Student Union to speak. Chow arrived 30 minutes early and was escorted by the Student Union officers. A large number of security guards were posted in various locations around the lecture theatre.

Because the guest from the Tibetan Han Cultural Association could not attend due to an illness, Jason Chow was the solo act for the evening. The poorly informed Jason Chow spoke about the history of Tibet, using the narrative of the Tibetan independence movement to say how the Central Government and the People's Liberation Army persecuted the people of Tibet, etc.

After reading off certain pieces of "history" used by the Tibetan independent movement, the City University Student Union played a short video about the Tibetan independent movement as packaged in the form of freedom and democracy. Jason Chow does not know much about Tibet, so he kept mispronouncing the names of Tibetan places. He was also confused about Tibetan Buddhism. His many elementary mistakes caused the audience to shake their heads. A student joked that "He knows very little, but he wants to act like a representative; instead he showed us his shortcomings."

The meeting went on for almost two hours. Jason Chow kept repeating himself; he spoke about Tibet, then Hong Kong. He kept saying that Tibet is being colonized and forced to severe itself from its culture and language, and that is why Tibet wants to be independent. He said that Hong Kong is also being colonized and forced to severe itself from its culture and language. But he turned around and said that the culture and language of Hong Kong are actually close to China. Nevertheless, Hong Kong has to be 'independent' as well. His logic could not be understood. An audience member asked Jason Chow that, given his opposition to putonghua, just how a person can get by in this society without the Two Languages/Three Dialects (English, Cantonese, putonghua). Chow said that knowing Two Languages/Three Dialects is actually very useful. But Chow did not explain how young people will learn putonghua if its teaching or even usage is banned in school.

Towards the end, Jason Chow said that the Hong Kong National Party is pursuing Hong Kong independence. An audience member raised doubts because there is no way that Hong Kong could do so with respect to politics, economy, national defense, etc. Jason Chow declined to address any of these realities. He stated generally that "there are no problems" with water supply, economic structure, diplomatic relationships, etc.

After a while, Jason Chow admitted that young people in Hong Kong are physically weak and feeble, and they can't serve as soldiers at war. However, Hong Kong can rely on foreign troops to "defend" Hong Kong. "As long as Hong Kong has it own popularly elected government, it is not 'colonization' even if foreign troops are stationed here. We will still be 'independent'. The Americans won't be 'in charge'."

(SCMP) March 11, 2017.

A leading figure of a radical localist party has likened the influence of mainland China on Hong Kong to Tibet’s experience after the Communist Party established control of the region in the early 1950s. Jason Chow Ho-fai, spokesman from the pro-independence Hong Kong National Party, presented at a seminar titled “New Tibet – Hong Kong under re-colonisation”.

But a total of 15 people walked out in protest at different times throughout the session. The event was held by City University’s students’ union to mark the 58th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising. Those who left held slogans or banners with the words “Opposition to Tibetan independence” or “Anti-Tibetan independence, Anti-Separatism”.

Chow said that the political situation faced by Hong Kong was similar to that of Tibet. “Both places have been deprived of the rights of national self-determination … how do we want to go forward into the future?” Chow asked.

He claimed that evidence of “re-colonisation” of the city by the mainland included schoolchildren speaking Putonghua in private conversations, and some companies listing competency in the language as a job requirement. “My party supports independence. Maintaining the status quo would mean suicide,” he said.

He urged Hong Kong to start preparing for independence, such as reducing reliance on the mainland. “Can we stop purchasing things from Chinese companies? Can we stop considering our local culture as inferior?” he said.

But the audience questioned whether Hong Kong could be sustainable if it became independent. “If we cannot purchase water from the mainland, what can we do? If we introduced an army from another country, are we going to be another country’s colony?” a woman asked. Others also questioned how Hong Kong could establish strong diplomatic ties with other countries if it were independent.

Reference: Hong Kong National Party

Internet comments:

- The United States will station their troops in Hong Kong to defend against China unconditionally? Well, you can't expect them to pay the bill, right? So they'll charge you for the costs of stationing the troops (such as living quarters, food, drinks, recreation, prostitutes, gambling, narcotics, etc). Next they will tell you that the troops need certain equipment for an effective deterrent/defense. So a Patriot system here, a THAAD system there, a few Aegis destroyers in the harbor, a few nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles for Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) ... before you know it, everybody is paying $10,000 a month in taxes to compensate these kind-hearted non-colonizers.

- (Asia-Pacific Journal Japan Focus) June 1, 2016.

A 20-year-old woman missing since late April was found dead on May 16, 2016. The suspect is a former Marine who is a civilian employee of the U.S. military at Kadena Airbase. Local police report that he confessed to the woman’s rape and murder, and told them the location of her corpse. This crime comes barely six weeks after a U.S. sailor assigned to Camp Schwab was arrested for the rape of a Japanese woman in a Naha hotel.

This incident is one of more than 500 crimes designated as heinous under Japanese law, including approximately 120 rapes, committed by U.S. forces in Okinawa since it reverted from U.S. military occupation to Japanese administration in 1972. The 120 reported rapes are only “the tip of an iceberg” since most rapes in Okinawa and elsewhere go unreported.

See also: Shen Chong case

- Ha ha ha, "the young people of Hong Kong are physically weak and feeble." As Marx said, "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." There is no use repeating a well-known fact; the point is what are you going to do about it. The young people of Hong Kong can begin now with 100 push-ups!

- Young man, study history! Your account of Hong Kong has many more parallels with Manchukuo than with Tibet.

- Someone in the audience should ask the simplest of all questions of Jason Chow: "Mr. Chow, have you ever visited Tibet?" If not, then all his so-called knowledge came from the Tibet Government In Exile, the CIA and Falun Gong.

- Mr. Chow has stated that the source of his knowledge about Tibet is the 'western press.'

- If it's in the Washington Times/New York Post/Daily Mail, it must be true.

- Especially Page Three - those are real boobs, nothing fake about them.

- Even as the 'pro-democracy' legislators are fighting against the presence of Chinese Customs at the Hong Kong end of the Express Rail Link because of 'sovereignty', the Hong Kong National Party is inviting the United States to station their troops without any worries over sovereignty, extraterritoriality or colonialism.

- Jason Chow learned all about Tibet from the western press. Here is how the western press covered the 2014 Kunming incident vs. the Lee Rigby murder (London 2013):

- Using the language of the western press for China, the 2017 Westminister 'incident' can be summarized: There was a traffic accident, after which the British citizen driver had an argument with the London police.

- Yau Wai-ching's Facebook, April 11, 2017

(EJ Insight) September 1, 2016.

The chairman of Sing Pao Media Enterprises, which publishes the Chinese-language newspaper Sing Pao Daily News, has rejected reports that he is absconding from the mainland in a bid to avoid arrest over alleged financial irregularities.

Gu Zhuoheng said in a statement late Wednesday that he is being subjected to malicious attacks and that there is no truth in the allegations that he is a wanted man in China. He added that he is a victim of a political revenge attack for not bowing to “certain forces”.

Media reports that suggested that he was absconding to avoid arrest for a purported financial crime were totally false and libelous, he said. The false allegations affected his employees’ morale and the reputation of his newspaper, Gu said.

His statement came after the Hong Kong China News Agency carried a report Wednesday that suggested that Gu is a fugitive from justice in China in connection with a financial scheme.

The report, citing the Shenzhen police department, alleged that Gu was involved in a case related to illegal soliciting of deposits worth about 130 million yuan (US$19.46 million) from the public. The police are trying to track him down but he has fled overseas, the report said.

Pro-Beijing newspaper Wen Wei Po, meanwhile, also published a report that was critical of Gu, accusing him of lacking the integrity that a media person should possess.

Gu said in his statement that he has been facing attacks since last year because he has refused to succumb to some political powers. He insisted that he is still free to cross the border between mainland and Hong Kong. Meanwhile, he urged his staff to watch out for their personal safety while continuing to do their work.

Sing Pao also lashed out at Wen Wei Po, saying its attack on Gu was tantamount to trampling on press freedom and editorial independence. The negative media reports on Gu came a day after Sing Pao Daily News published a commentary that was severely critical of Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying. Leung had deliberately stoked fears about separatism in Hong Kong in a bid to consolidate his power and win a second term in office next year, the commentary suggested, adding that Beijing’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong may have been acting in concert with Leung. Before Leung took office, there was hardly any talk of independence in Hong Kong, the paper noted.

As Sing Pao is generally considered to be a pro-establishment newspaper, the strong front-page commentary raised a lot of eyebrows. Political commentator Ching Cheong suspects it was the commentary that landed Gu in trouble. Johnny Lau Yui-siu, another political observer, said the report carried by Hong Kong China News Agency on Gu’s alleged crime might have been directed by Beijing. It may have been aimed as a warning to Hong Kong media to tread carefully before the Legislative Council election this Sunday, Lau said.

Gu also pointed out in his statement Wednesday that the “malicious attacks” on him came a day after Sing Pao carried the commentary that “resonated strongly with the Hong Kong public”.

(Global Voices) How the pro-Beijing Sing Pao newspaper turned against CY Leung. By Oiwan Lam. September 24, 2016.

In Hong Kong, you’re either from the pro-Beijing camp and supportive of the central government of China, or from the pan-democracy camp and for less central control from China. But for three weeks, one of Hong Kong’s oldest newspapers has been blurring the line.

Sing Pao Daily, which is otherwise known to be pro-Beijing, has been running anonymous critiques of the city’s top leader, Chief Executive Leung Chun Ying — who came to power with Beijing’s blessing — and the powerful Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government, which is Beijing’s top representative body in Hong Kong.

Some critics believe the shocking move from Sing Pao Daily shows fissures within Hong Kong’s pro-Beijing camp and represents views from a powerful sector within the pro-Beijing camp that has been marginalised by the chief executive and the Liaison Office.

Specifically, the paper has accused Leung of “inciting” independence in Hong Kong and cozying up with members of organised crime or the Triad. The anonymous commenter has also accused the Liaison Office of interfering in Hong Kong’s domestic affairs and manipulating local legislative elections by supporting groups that divide the pan-democracy camp.

On September 12, a commentary in the paper went so far as to claim that Leung was part of a “Gang of Four” trying to destablise Hong Kong. The Gang of Four is a term used for four Chinese Communist Party officials who became incredibly powerful during the latter part of Mao’s Cultural Revolution (1966–76) and were later charged with treason.

The next day, Sing Pao published a widely spread netizen-photoshopped picture of Leung sitting in a prison cell (see top photo) with a commentary attacking Jiang Zai Zhong, the CEO of the media group Ta Kung Pao, for turning his newspaper into Leung and the Liaison Office’s mouthpiece.

Leung dismissed the newspaper’s accusations and simply said “it was not worth commenting on – you know what is going on very well.”

Some analysts believe the continuous anonymous critique is meant to ‘bombard’ Beijing with discontent and will not stop until Beijing finalises the list of candidates for Leung’s replacement in the 2017 chief executive election. Leung was selected by a 1,200-member election committee with Beijing’s blessing as the city’s chief executive in 2012.

Others believe that the newspaper wants to drive home the need for an ongoing corruption investigation into the Liaison Office to deliver results. Since January 2016, a team from China’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection has been investigating the Liaison Office, looking into their financial records and reviewing the effectiveness and functioning of the Beijing body in Hong Kong.

Soon after the first commentary was published, various other newspapers in Hong Kong, including Wen Wei Po which is run by the Liaison Office, fought back and attempted to discredit Sing Pao, by attacking its owner. They published news reports accusing its chairman, Gu Zhuheng, of being a “fugitive” who was involved in an illegal money lending platform and is wanted by police in the Chinese city Shenzhen. Gu denounced the accusation, claiming that it was “false” and “libelous”.

Gu Zhuoheng took over Sing Pao Daily, one of Hong Kong’s oldest papers, by injecting capital into the corporation when the paper was on the verge of bankruptcy in August 2015. At the time, people in Hong Kong believed that Gu was backed by the Beijing government in taking over the paper, in order to strengthen the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) control over media in Hong Kong. The Liaison Office already runs three newspapers in Hong Kong and most big media houses are editorially aligned with the pro-Beijing camp.

The first front-page commentary, published on August 30, created an uproar for holding Leung accountable for the rise of the independence movement in Hong Kong. Here’s a translation courtesy of Hong Kong Free Press:

In fact, Hong Kong independence has no market in Hong Kong… Leung Chun-ying deliberately encouraged Hong Kong independence to consolidate the authority of his governance and the hawk faction.

The paper then urges the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) to investigate Leung and the Liaison Office over power abuse:

Hong Kong society expects the CCDI to investigate the work and the role of the Liaison Office along with a recommendation to disband the group that hurts the interests of the country and Hong Kong.

Sing Pao’s opinion actually echoes the view of many people in Hong Kong, who sarcastically labelled Leung as the father of Hong Kong’s pro-independence movement, as he kept making public speeches on the “non-existing” separatist tendency.

According to the “one country, two systems” principle underwritten in 1997, when Hong Kong was handed back to the people of China from the UK, the city’s capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for 50 years until 2047. But Beijing has been showing signs of impatience in recent years, encroaching more and more on Hong Kong’s internal affairs, including disqualifying pro-independence candidates from elections and deploying strategies that split the pan-democrat votes and weaken their camp, which unlike the pro-Beijing camp, supports less central control from China.

Sing Pao ran another commentary, two days before voting in local elections began on September 2. The piece criticised Leung and the Liaison Office for providing resources and assistance to a pan-democratic political group called Youngspiration. The group is running against Scholarism, a student activist group behind the series of pro-democracy protests in 2014, known as the Umbrella Revolution. The paper also made accusations that a number of the group’s key members came from a non-profit organisation that is affiliated with Lau Nai Keung, a pro-Beijing businessman who is a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. But Youngspiration has denied any linkage to Lau.

The anonymous commentator then questioned why Leung banned six pro-independence candidates running for legislative elections, but allowed members of Youngspiration to run the race, given that the group has openly claimed to support the self-determination of Hong Kong.

This was not the only time local elections in Hong Kong have seen the sudden rise of “radical” political groups within pan-democrats. For example, during the district council election in 2015, Anthony Cheng, who is connected to a pro-Beijing businessman, was offering election funds to new political groups, which had the potential to compete with other pan-democratic parties.

Sing Pao continued to bombard Leung and the China Liaison Office after the legislative elections. After newly elected lawmaker Eddie Chu received a death threat, Sing Pao accused Leung of actively seeking the Triad or organised crime’s support when he started his election campaign in 2012.

The paper reminded the public of a dinner in February 2012 in which Leung and his election team were sitting with a dozen representatives of the indigenous rural community, two of whom are believed to be aligned with the Triad. The dinner meeting was Leung’s election campaign.

Leung did not shy away from the Triad after coming into office, which analysts say has undermined the rule of law in Hong Kong. After Leung became the chief executive, in August 2013 members of the Triad were called to stop anti-government protesters from approaching a town hall meeting that Leung was attending. During the pro-democracy protests in 2014, members of the Triad were mobilised to attack sit-in protesters in Mong Kok.

(EJ Insight) October 11, 2016.

For the past four weeks, Hong Kong people have been rushing to buy a newspaper so quickly that the stalls have sold out by mid-morning. Is it Apple or Oriental Daily, the best-selling titles in the city? No, this is Sing Pao, a modest and little-read paper.

It has leapt into the news with remarkable stories “revealing the secrets of the ‘Gang of Four’ who are causing chaos in Hong Kong”. The Four are Chief Executive CY Leung: Zhang Xiaogang, head of the Central Government Liaison Office; Jiang Zaizhong, chairman of the two main Communist dailies in Hong Kong; and a fourth man whose name it has not revealed. It has even attacked Zhang Dejiang, the third most powerful man in China and chairman of the National People’s Congress (NPC), the parliament. He is also the top official for Hong Kong and Macau affairs. The newspaper has accused the Liaison Office of selling seats in the NPC and the advisory body, the CPPCC, the China People’s Political Consultative Congress.

Here is part of an article from October 3: “Everyone in political circles in Hong Kong knows that, to follow the path to the CPPCC in provinces and cities in the mainland, they must make contact with the Liaison Office and offer advantages in order to obtain a paper of recommendation.

“Those in political circles say that the officials of ‘the Western district” (the Liaison Office) are increasingly knowledgeable about what to eat and drink. It must exactly suit their taste. The meals have moved into private homes and private clubs in order to escape detection. To obtain nomination for a CPPCC seat for a mainland city or province, you must invite a famous chef from Japan or fly fresh fish in from Japan, if you want to succeed. Zhang Dejiang is complacent about this NPC corruption system and promotes it openly; he is beside himself with laughter, like CY Leung and Zhang Xiaogang, and accustomed to ‘feeling good’.”

The paper said that the independence issue here was created by the Chief Executive as part of a plan to be nominated for a second term, by presenting a city in chaos that needs a strong, reliable leader to keep control. It has called Wen Hui Bao and Ta Kung Pao, the two main Communist titles in the city, “clown papers”.

These attacks are the more extraordinary because the owner of Sing Pao is no Hong Kong democrat but mainland businessman Gu Zhuoheng, who injected new capital in 2014 to save it from bankruptcy. At the time, most people saw this as part of Beijing’s strategy to extend its control over the Hong Kong media. Until these recent attacks, its editorial line had always been pro-Beijing.

According to mainland websites, Gu graduated with a degree in law and is a successful businessman with interests in mining, wealth management and real estate. There is limited public information about him.

In response to the attacks, Wen Hui and Ta Kung have accused Gu of being a criminal who stole 130 million yuan (US$19.37 million) from an online financial platform in Shenzhen and fled abroad to escape arrest. They quoted Shenzhen police as saying he was a wanted man. Gu has called the accusations “false and libelous”.

While Hong Kong people much enjoy these juicy revelations of infighting and name-calling within the mainland bureaucracy, they are confused as to the motives behind it. Gu himself is not a well-known figure here or in the mainland and has not given an explanation.

There are two main explanations. One is that Sing Pao would not dare to be so outspoken in criticising powerful government figures without strong backers in Beijing. These backers do not want Leung to have a second term as chief executive and are using the paper to blacken his name. In its Oct. 7 edition, the paper, gave lengthy coverage to a speech by Finance Secretary John Tsang in Los Angeles, in which he stressed the importance of unity in Hong Kong society and said that this was the responsibility of everyone. Beijing has not indicated its preference for the next chief executive; lobbying behind the scenes is intense.

The other explanation is less heroic. “I do not bother to read Sing Pao at all,” said a veteran Hong Kong journalist who has covered the mainland for 30 years. “These stories are all nonsense. Gu wants amnesty for criminal offenses in the mainland, allowing him to go back and continue his businesses there. If the government offers this, he will stop the criticisms at once. It is media blackmail, common in the mainland, where journalists threaten to report negative news about a person or a company but will spike the story if they are paid enough.” The tactics and language used by the paper are typical of the mainland and of an earlier era, such as the Cultural Revolution, when politicians used the ‘pen’ to wage war against their opponents and called them nicknames.

We will learn the answer sooner or later. In the meantime, enjoy the ride.

(SCMP) October 20, 2016.

Mainland state media yesterday repeated news that the boss of local newspaper Sing Pao Daily News was allegedly involved in illegal financial activities with a Shenzhen-based finance platform.

The report by Xinhua said Gu Zhuoheng, 44, chairman of pro-establishment Sing Pao Media Enterprises since October 2014, was wanted by Shenzhen police for an alleged connection to a case of illegally receiving some 150 million yuan (HK$173 million) from financial platform cnmeidai.com, based in Shenzhen.

Gu denied similar reports, published previously, in a statement in August, saying he had no relationship with the platform, which claimed to be China’s first online medium of its kind providing services from peer-to-peer lending to financing for small and medium-sized enterprises. Gu also stressed that he had been free to travel between Hong Kong and the mainland.

He earlier claimed he had been under revenge-driven political attack since last year because he would not submit to a “certain power”. He has not identified the power. The details of the case had been carried by mainland media including Southern Metropolis Daily in April last year, and the semi official Hong Kong China News Agency in August this year. Some pro-Beijing newspapers in Hong Kong also repeated the reports.

The details of the case had been carried by mainland media including Southern Metropolis Daily in April last year, and the semi official Hong Kong China News Agency in August this year. Some pro-Beijing newspapers in Hong Kong also repeated the reports.

(EJ Insight) February 22, 2017.

Police are investigating alleged stalking of Sing Pao staff by suspected mainland operatives. The newspaper has also received threatening e-mails and phone calls, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports.

Sing Pao has been publishing a series of front-page articles critical of some chief executive candidates and Beijing’s Liaison Office since August.

The stalking started in mid-February when large groups of suspected mainlanders began harassing staff and taking their photos. One of the targets was chief editor Lau Mei-yee.

Police said they received a report from a woman on Feb. 19 that her personal safety was at risk, according to Ming Pao Daily. Recently the woman contacted the police again concerning slanderous flyers with her photo and plastered in her neighborhood. Other management staff of the newspaper have also had their photos posted on flyers. The flyers say Sing Pao chairman Gu Zhuoheng owes money to his employees. The photos are said to have been taken from their Home Return Permits. The police confirmed to HKEJ that Sing Pao has filed a case against the suspects.

Sing Pao believes the incidents are most likely tied to the articles. It said its website has been hacked in the past month, causing disruptions on February 18 and 19. In addition, its e-mail accounts have been swamped with spam mail every seven minutes or so at one time.

Gu issued a statement condemning the threats to Sing Pao’s management. He challenged anyone who is dissatisfied with the newspaper to express their opinions by lawful means instead of resorting to rogue tactics. The newspaper said it is worried about the safety of its employees but vowed to continue its editorial line.

Legislator James To expressed concern over the incidents, describing them as a challenge to Hong Kong’s freedom of the press. He urged the police to investigate and ensure the safety of Sing Pao workers.

(EJ Insight) February 27, 2017.


 Sing Pao chairman Gu Zhuoheng said the attacks on the newspaper's staff have reached a "crazy level". In the latest incident, assailants splashed red paint (inset) on the house of an executive

Sing Pao Daily has called the police after assailants splashed red paint on the residence of a member of its management team. This is the fourth time that the Chinese-language newspaper has called the police in a week’s time after members of its management team and editorial staff reported being harassed and stalked by unknown individuals, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports. Some of the staff have been receiving nuisance calls while others found threatening leaflets around their homes. Police have classified the latest incident as a case of criminal damage.

Sources at Sing Pao said the harassments started after the newspaper started coming out with stories that are highly critical to the Liaison Office.

Gu Zhuoheng, chairman of Sing Pao Media Enterprises, has refused to stop the publication of such stories, the sources said. Sing Pao said in a statement that it has gathered evidence suggesting that the criminal acts involved people from the mainland. It urged the central government to take necessary actions to stop such acts.

Sham Yee-lan, chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, said she feels frustrated by the violence inflicted on journalists, Apple Daily reported.

Sing Pao quoted its chairman Gu as saying that the attacks on the newspaper staff have reached a “crazy level”. Gu also said the culture of corruption in the mainland has had a damaging impact on the rule of law and development of democracy in Hong Kong.

(SCMP) February 27, 2017.

Chinese-language newspaper Sing Pao Daily News called the police on Sunday after the home of a senior staff member was splashed with red paint as the recent harassment against the publication intensified. It was the fourth time the newspaper had called the police since February 19, after the newspaper’s editorial staff spotted suspicious people following its managing staff and lingering near their office in Kwun Tong and their homes.

Among those shadowed was chief editor Lau Mei-yee, the Post learned. A police source said earlier that Lau had filed a report on February 19 about threats to her personal safety . She also called on behalf of the newspaper.

On one of the occasions, a picture of at least one staff member was posted near an employee’s home. The newspaper said it thought the picture was taken from a home return permit, the travel document that enables Hong Kong residents to travel to mainland China.

The newspaper said late last week that it received a large number of nuisance phone calls and emails containing computer viruses directed at certain employees. In the latest incident on Sunday, red paint was sprayed outside the home of a female senior staff member. Leaflets with intimating messages were also posted at her home.

The Post learned from a source that police would provide protection to senior staff. A police spokesman confirmed the security arrangement on Sunday. A police source said multiple senior staff members were covered by the arrangement.

The Kowloon East regional crime unit has taken over the investigation of four recent cases. They are the case on Sunday morning, the sighting of suspicious people reported on February 19, leaflets being posted near a senior staff worker’s home reported on February 21 and a large number of nuisance phone calls and emails directed at certain employees reported on Friday. The force spokesman said: “Police are paying great attention to these cases … and will provide appropriate protection according to the needs of the people concerned.”

In a statement on Sunday, the newspaper “strongly condemned” interest group(s) involved in the city and mainland China over suspected use of triad gangs to intimidate staff in a bid to disturb the chief executive election. “[The groups] used such extreme violent and base acts to make sure the candidates they like would be elected.”

(SCMP) March 9, 2017.

Mainland authorities have sought assistance from Interpol for the arrest of Sing Pao Daily boss Gu Zhuoheng over suspected illegal financial activities, according to sources.

Gu, chairman of Sing Pao Media Enterprises, which owns the long-time pro-establishment daily, is wanted by Shenzhen police for an alleged connection to a case involving the illegal receipt of some 150 million yuan (HK$173 million) from Shenzhen-based financial platform cnmeidai.com.

A source with the Shenzhen authorities concerned said the intergovernmental organisation based in Lyon, France had recently issued a “red notice” over Gu’s arrest. His assets on the mainland have also been frozen.

The Post has not been able to independently verify the information provided. Local newspaper Sing Tao Daily also carried a report, citing sources, on Thursday. The Post has made inquiries to Interpol to confirm the reports.

Issued at the behest of a member country, a red listing means the person concerned is wanted by national jurisdictions for prosecution or to serve a sentence based on an arrest warrant or court decision. Gu’s name could not be found in Interpol’s online database for red notices on Thursday morning. At least 47 other people are wanted by China, according to the list. The international body’s role is “to seek the location and arrest of wanted persons with a view to extradition or similar lawful action”. But the red notice itself is not an international arrest warrant.

According to information provided by the source, Gu set up cnmeidai.com with a partner in Lo Wu in July 2012 as a peer-to-peer online investment and financing platform promising “10 to 20 per cent” annual returns. It then went bust in November 2014, and about 350 investors suffered cumulative losses amounting to some 960 million yuan, the source added. It is understood that the financial platform’s chief financial officer as well as Gu’s wife are being scheduled for trial.

Gu had previously denied having any relationship with the platform and described his case as a revenge-driven political attack because he would not submit to a “certain power”. He did not identify that “power”.

(Bastille Post) March 9, 2017.

Many persons on the Interpol red notice will flee to western countries and then plead political persecution for anti-government activities in order to avoid or delay extradition. Whether anti-government speech can gain political asylum depends on the evidence. In this case, a peer-to-peer financing platform prevented their users from withdrawing their own money in mid-November 2014. During 2015, the police began to arrest those concerned with the platform. In 2016, the platform owner's newspaper began publishing anti-government material in a column. It will be hard to convince a foreign court that this was political persecution, because the criminal case preceded the anti-government speeches.

(The Standard) March 10, 2017.

Hong Kong authorities could freeze the assets of the Sing Pao Daily boss Gu Zhuoheng after Interpol issued a "red notice" for his arrest following Beijing's request for assistance over suspected illegal financial activities.

In an exclusive story yesterday, The Standard's sister paper Sing Tao Daily cited sources that Interpol had issued the red notice on Gu, the Sing Pao Media Enterprises chairman.

Xinhua News Agency confirmed yesterday that Gu was allegedly involved in Shenzhen-based financial platform cnmeidai.com illegal fund- raising case involving up to 1.35 billion yuan (HK$1.51 billion), with a few hundred people falling victim.

According to a picture of the warrant obtained from a source, Interpol issued the red notice on February 28 this year and the warrant is effective until February 28, 2022.

The red notice stated that Gu was born in 1972, has an alias of Gu Jianhong, is 178cm tall and weighs 80kg. It stated he was charged with the "crime of illegally absorbing public funds" under Article 176 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China. He faces up to 10 years' imprisonment.

The crimes were allegedly committed from December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2014 in Shenzhen City.

According to Sing Tao Daily, Gu and his wife set up cnmeidai.com in Shenzhen in 2012 to attract the public to lend on the internet platform with interest rates of 10 to 20 percent to attract investors. Investors had steady returns in the beginning and the investment amount grew to 1.35 billion yuan.

In November 2014, investors found that they could not withdraw money from the platform. Gu consoled investors and also signed letters of demand with some investors but, after the letters expired, investors could not contact him.

According to mainland immigration records, Gu left China on February 25, 2015, and has not returned.

On May 27 of the same year, the People's Procuratorate of Luohu District, Shenzhen, issued an arrest warrant on Gu for allegedly illegally taking in public funds.

As Gu was on the run, Shenzhen police applied for a red notice on him from the Ministry of Public Security.

A Hong Kong police chief inspector told Sing Tao Daily that when officers are investigating cases involving money laundering and there is a chance of a suspect escaping, they can send a No Consent Letter to banks to freeze the suspect's bank accounts.

Once the No Consent Letter is sent, the Department of Justice can apply for a freeze order from the High Court and freeze all the suspect's assets, Selwyn Yu Sing-cheung, a senior counsel told Sing Tao Daily.

The police did not comment.

The Hong Kong Company Registry said Gu has 18 companies.

(Ta Kung Pao) (Ta Kung Pao) March 11, 2017.

Our investigation revealed that Gu Zhuoheng was originally named Gu Jianhong, from Weifang city, Shantong province. He married Shen Wei, from Liaoning province. He traveled to Brazil and came back saying that he speaks Portuguese and has Brazilian residency.

The legal cases related to Gu Zhuoheng began with the Ludun Milk Industries Company. At the time, Gu Jianhong had established the Beijing Asia-Pacific Land Properties International Investment Limited Company and purchased the Ludun Milk Industries Company as a rich wealthy Brazilian Chinese. He then changed the named of the company to Liya (China) Beverage. Gu signed a contract with the Chifeng city government in Inner Mongoloia, with the stated intention of investing 1 billion RMB to develop coffee-related projects.

The original owners of Ludun Milk Industries found problems with the original sale and went to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to take back their control. But during the time that Ludun was Liya, a company named Guoli Steel Beam used a piece of Ludun land as collateral to obtain a 46 million RMB loan from the Bank of Agriculture. Gu Jianhong was the legal representative of Guoli Steel Beam. After the Ludun ownership was reverted, Gu's partner cried to the media about his assets being forcibly taken away and said that he is broke, which is a position very different from the proposal to Chifeng city. Gu himself did not appear.

In 2010, Gu Jianhong and Shen Wei went to Shenzhen. At first, they stayed at a cheap 50 RMB/night hostel to save money. Due to the impact of the Beijing Ludun affair, Gu did not want to use the name Gu Jianhong. So his wife Shen Wei established the Shenzhen Century Star Space Audio-visual Production Company to boost his their son Gu Wenzhi as a Brazilian star actor. The company attracted parents to pay high fees to sign their children up. Several months later, Shen Wei absconded with the money, leaving debts of more than 1 million RMB in tuition fees and office rent.

In 2010, Shen Wei bought the Shenzhen Jiumo Electronics Company and changed its name to Shenzhen City Dinghuo Investment Guaranty Limited Company. In 2012, Gu set up cnmeidai.com and claimed that investments are guaranteed by the Shenzhen City Dinghuo Investment Guaranty Limited Company with 10% to 20% return on investment. Due to its success, Gu established the Xunda Wealth in Tianjin city and Zhongyong Capital in Hangzhou.

In 2014, Gu Jianhong applied to the Beijing Public Security Bureau to change his name to Gu Zhuoheng. He began to present himself as the chairman of the Shenzhen Dinghuo Property Management Group. When cnmeidai.com was first established, investments could withdraw their money at any time with a steady return on investment. The cumulative total investment was as much as $1.35 billion RMB. In July 2014, Gu acquired South Asia Mineral Industries and Sing Pao. According to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, Gu increased his holdings in South Asia Mineral Properties to 322 million shares. After the acquisition, Gu changed the name of the company to Dinghuo Mineral Industries. He also invested 20 million in Sing Pao and became its chairman.

On September 5, 2014, Gu Zhuoheng was taken away by the police at the Shenzhen airport. He was found to be carrying forged ID and military pass. He posted bail. In November 2014, investors who could not withdraw money from cnmeidai.com came down to Shenzhen to seek recourse. Gu Zhuoheng met them as a person in charge, and signed a letter of demand. He said that he owns a piece of land in Pingshan worth 1.5 billion RMB at the time. He told the investors not to worry. The immigration control system showed that Gu Zhuoheng left mainland China on February 25, 2015 and has not been back since. When the letter of demand became due, the investors were unable to reach Gu Zhuoheng.

When Gu originally went to head Sing Pao, he was the temporary chairman holding an unknown number of shares. In April 2015, debt holders filed in court for Sing Pao to go into bankruptcy. In July 2015, Gu increased his Sing Pao holdings to 261,473,945 shares (13.26%). At the time, the company which filed in court against Sing Pao was the Hanzhong Cultural Investment Limited Company, who two directors are Wang Xuehua and Liao Qiaocheng. The names of these two individuals are identical to cnmeidia.com's assistant to the chairman and customer services manager. Wang Xuehua was arrested in mainland China, and the court documents showed that she admits that she was a Hanzhong Cultural Investment Limited Company director. Afterwards Sing Pao stopped publication for 20 days because it was unable to pay its printing bills. Gu then formally became the Sing Pao Media Group chairman.

So far Gu Zhuoheng has been saying that he is not connected to cnmeidai.com. On the day before yesterday, Gu Zhuoheng issued a statement to say that there is no basis for saying that he is wanted by the INTERPOL. However, an Internet media outlet has obtained a copy of the INTERPOL Red Notice dated February 28 and effective until February 28, 2022. Gu was said to have broken Article 176 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China for the crime of illegal absorbing public funds with a maximum jail term of 10 years.

In August 2014, Gu Zhuoheng applied for a non-immigrant visa at the US Consulate in Guangzhou. Recently he posted photos of his life in the United States. According to information, he met a woman named Gao in Hong Kong and they now have twins.

(Ta Kung Pao) March 11, 2017.

Once it was reported that Sing Pao Media Group chairman Gu Zhuoheng is wanted by the INTERPOL, the 170,000 square meter land under his name became of interest to the public. This land is estimated to be worth 3 billion RMB.

At present, there are two guards at the location. One of the guards worked for the Huang family in Taiwan. The other guard works for people who have financial disputes with Gu Zhuoheng. The two guards did not stop our reporter from entering the site. Our reporter went through a weed-covered path and saw the abandoned factory buildings. Some of the buildings have collapsed, and others appeared to have suffered from fires.

According to the guard for the Huang family, "In 2013, the Taiwanese businessman Huang Wencai wanted to sell the land for 200 million RMB. At the time, the Shenzhen investor Zhang Yinjin expressed interest. But they disagreed with the details, and it became a dispute. Gu Zhuoheng got to know Huang Wencai's daughter and said that he knows certain powerful people who can settle the dispute. However, the land needs to be signed over to Gu in order for this to work. This was how he obtained the land by deception. Cnmeidai.com owes a few hundred million RMB to investors. But this land is worth at least 3 billion RMB at this time. If the land is really Gu's, what does he need to be a fugitive. He can sell the land directly and he will have the money to cover what he owed. We were sent here to keep guard because the Huang family is afraid that someone is going to illegally develop this land."

This plot of land is located close to the soon-to-come Pingshan subway station in the busy Liulian community and it is a dozen minutes from the Pingshan High Speed Rail station. Therefore it has great investment potential.

(Wen Wei Po) May 5, 2017.

On trial today for the Cnmedia.com case, Gu Zhuoheng's wife Shen Wei denied completely that she had any part in this. Is she the wife of Gu Zhuoheng? Shen Wei said they agreed to divorce in 2012, and they only see each other when she brings the children down from Nanjing to visit during the summer. She knows nothing about Gu Zhuoheng using her name to establishment the Cnmeidai.com operation.

Under cross examination, Shen Wei admitted that she and co-workers went to various banks to obtain 15 cards. Some of the money from investors ended up with Shen Wei, but she said that this was just money for purchasing a home and providing for the education of the children. She denied ever investing the money overseas or buying land and luxury houses.

Cnmeidai.com CFO Wang Jing was also on trial. She said that she was only responsible for company finances in accordance with instructions from Gu Zhuoheng to transfer the investors' money for investment or other uses.

Internet comments:

- What does it mean if you go to the INTERPOL website and fail to find Gu Zhuoheng's name among the Red Notices? Well, it means nothing, because (INTERPOL):

Can I look up a Red Notice?

While most Red Notices are restricted to law enforcement use only, some member countries choose to make an extract publicly available. This includes information such as the individual’s name and the criminal charges for which they are wanted. The full Red Notice contains additional information for law enforcement purposes only. See public extracts of Red Notices.

(Bastille Post) March 9, 2017.

According to a senior Hong Kong Police official, Gu Zhuoheng is indeed on the Interpol's most wanted list. Here is the relevant "Red Notice."

The charge against Gu Zhuoheng is Article 176 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China:

Article 176. Whoever takes deposits from people illegally or in disguised form and disrupts financial order shall be sentenced to not more than three years in prison or criminal detention. He or she shall be fined, additionally or exclusively, not less than 20,000 yuan and not more than 200,000 yuan. If the amount involved is large or if the circumstances are otherwise serious, he or she shall be sentenced to not less than three years and not more than 10 years in prison. In addition, he or she shall be fined not less than 50,000 yuan and not more than 500,000 yuan.

If the crime mentioned in the preceding paragraph is committed by a unit, the unit in question shall be fined, and the individual directly in charge of it and other people who are directly responsible shall be punished in accordance with the provisions in the preceding paragraph.

The crime occurred in Shenzhen city, from December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2014.

- (SCMP) What’s an Interpol red notice and what power does it wield over wanted Chinese tycoon Guo Wengui? April 19, 2017.

What is an Interpol red notice?

An Interpol red notice is a request to locate and provisionally arrest someone pending extradition. It is issued at the request of a member country of Interpol or an international tribunal based on a valid national arrest warrant.

When a red notice is published, it informs all 190 Interpol member countries that the person is wanted based on an arrest warrant issued by a country or an international tribunal.

What happens after a red notice is issued?

Police all around the world are alerted as the red notice is sent to all 190 Interpol member countries.

Each member country decides for itself what legal action to take over a red notice.

Many of Interpol’s member countries consider a Red Notice a valid request for provisional arrest, especially if they are linked to the requesting country via a bilateral extradition treaty.

Is it an international arrest warrant?

No, the Interpol red notice is not an international arrest warrant, although it is often described in the media as “the closest” thing to one.

Interpol cannot insist or compel any member country to arrest an individual who is the subject of a red notice, nor can it require any member country to take any action in response to another member country’s request.

Interpol also does not send its own officers to arrest the subject of the red notice.

Can the public look up an Interpol red notice?

While most red notices are restricted to law enforcement use only, some member countries choose to make extracts publicly available.

They can post an abridged version of the red notice on the Interpol website, including information such as the individual’s name and criminal charges, but that is only an option and they are not required to do so.

The requesting country of a red notice can also ask that it not be publicised.

Has China requested Interpol red notices before?

In 2015, China published a list of 100 of its most wanted corruption suspects, who all had Interpol red notices issued, as part of its graft-busting Operation Skynet to bring back fugitives hiding overseas. At least 40 of that 100 have been brought back to China.

As of now, the Interpol website lists 46 people publicly who are wanted by China, and 152 people with Chinese nationality are on Interpol’s public red notice list.

Do China and the US have an agreement on extradition?

China and the United States do not have an extradition treaty but they signed an agreement on mutual judicial assistance in 2000 to “improve the effectiveness of cooperation between the two countries in respect of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.”

According to the agreement, China and the US should provide mutual assistance in investigations, prosecutions and proceedings related to criminal matters, including serving documents and locating or identifying persons.

- Red paint splashed on the front of the home of a senior Sing Pao staff member? Sing Pao must be paying their staff a pittance -- this is the standard iron gate for an old public housing apartment. Reference: Income and Asset Limits for Public Housing.

- (Sing Tao Daily) March 9, 2017.

On May 13, 2016, Wang Xuehua (assistant to the chairman of cnmeidai.com) and cnmeidai.com's legal representative Hao Jianguo stood trial in the Luohu District People's Court, Shenzhen City. They testified that Guo Zhuoheng was the real boss of cnmeidai.com. Hao said that in November 2014, Gu used the money that was collected from investors to purchase the newspaper Sing Pao in Hong Kong. Wang and Hao were sentenced to seven years in prison each.

According to the verdict document, Gu Zhuoheng and Hao Jianguo established cnmeidai.com in Luohu District, Shenzhen City. They promised to pay 10% to 20% annual interest to investors who deposit their investments into the personal account of Gu's wife Shen Wei. In November 2014, the company collapsed and the investors could not get their money back. There were 350 victims, who invested $960 million RMB. Shen Wei was arrested in Beijing and will stand trial with cnmeidai.com Chief Financial Officer Wang Jing.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 9, 2017.

In 2012, Gu Zhuoheng and his wife Shen Wei established cnmeidai.com in Shenzhen with a promise of annual return rate between 10% and 20%. It had attracted as much as 1.35 billion RMB in investments. In November 2014, the investors found that they could not withdraw money from the cnmeidai.com. The investors went down to the Shenzhen office of cnmeidai.com to demand their money back. At the time, the person in charge Gu Zhuoheng assured them: "Nobody will lose even half a cent of their investment!" He even signed IOU's with some of the claimants. But when the money came due, Gu was nowhere to be found.

According to the mainland Chinese border control data, Gu Zhuoheng existed China on February 25, 2015 and never went back again. Gu stayed in Hong Kong for a while, and traveled frequently between Hong Kong and Thailand. Later Gu Zhuoheng went and stayed in the United States. According to information, Gu applied for a tourist visa from the US Consulate in Guangzhou before the implosion of cnmeidai.com.

- (Sing Tao Daily) March 9, 2017.

Gu Zhuoheng took over Sing Pao in 2014. From late August 2016, Sing Pao published a series of headline articles under the name of a commentator (Han Jiangxie 漢江泄) about the secrets of the Central Government, the Hong Kong Government and the Chief Executive election. Speculation is that Gu Zhuoheng wanted to manufacture an appearance of political persecution in order to seek political asylum overseas.

Sing Pao was founded on May 1, 1935. In recent years, its has changed hands several times. On August 6, 2015, the Hanzhong Cultural Investment Limited Company asked the High Court to declare bankruptcy, so that Sing Pao stopped publication for 20 days. According to the company registry, the Hanzhong Cultural Investment Limited Company has a director named Wang Xuehua, who has the same name and address as the cnmeidai.com person who was sentenced to seven years in prison.

- (Sing Tao Daily) March 9, 2017.

At around 4pm on February 24, two men and twelve women went to demonstrate at the Sing Pao office in Kwun Tong. They represented friends and families who lost money with cnmeidai.com. They shouted slogans such as "Give us our money back." According to a man named Ng, his mainland friends/relatives lost more than $10 million. Two days later, another group of cnmeidai.com victims protested at Sing Pao, demanding their money back and telling Sing Pao workers not to become co-criminals. On March 1 at 5pm, another dozen of so victims went to demonstrate at Sing Pao again. The police came and checked their ID's. The victims left peacefully.

At this time, the support rates are 41.2% for John Tsang, 34.3% for Carrie Lam and 11.8% for Woo Kwok-hing. 6.9% said none of the above and another 5.9% said "No answer/refused to answer".

But who is going to the eventual winner? 69.7% believe that Carrie Lam will win and 17.4% believe that John Tsang will win. 58.4% believe that public opinion won't influence the election outcome.

Why do people support John Tsang?
51.8%: Mend social rifts
20.9%: Improve people's livelihood
11.8%: Defend human rights, freedom and rule of law
9.7%: Improve the economy
1.9%: Trusted by the Central Government
3.9%: No answer/refused to answer

Why do people support Carrie Lam?
38.8%: Improve people's livelihood
23.9%: Trusted by the Central Government
18.6%: Improve the economy
7.5%: Mend social rifts
3.2%: Defend human rights, freedom and rule of law
8.0%: No answer/refused to answer

Why do people support Woo Kwok Hing?
65.1%: Defend human rights, freedom and rule of law
17.5%: Mend social rifts
12.4%: Improve people's livelihood
0.5%: Improve the economy
0.0%: Trusted by the Central Government
4.4%: No answer/refused to answer.

(Economic Journal) Among so-called pan-democrats, how do you think that the pan-democrats on the Election Committee should vote?
39.2%: John Tsang
9.9%: Carrie Lam
8.2%: Woo Kwok-hing
18.8%: Blank votes
23.9%: No answer/refused to answer.

#001. (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. March 7, 2017.

I watched the first debate this past Sunday. My daughter asked: "Is there really going to be a debate? That would be interesting to watch ..." The result was a boring event, forgettable, no hostilities, no dramatic action such as calling "You are a liar!"

The absence of John Tsang took away the interest in this debate. He declined to attend this first debate; he even demanded the organizers Path To Democracy to join the debate from a different location? Hey, if you become the Chief Executive, will you deliver your governance report through your Facebook/blog?

As the saying goes: You can lose to someone but you should not lose because of your demeanor. In this case, you did not even dare to face a little woman. John Tsang has lost his first battle without even taking part in it.

It takes preparation to participate in forums. You have to memorize certain facts and policies, and you need to be quick on your feet about the unanticipated. John Tsang wants to be in his comfort zone: watching a movie; drinking coffee; eating hot dogs; shooting the breeze ... or watch his his alma mater compete in track & field wearing a school blazer. He is not known as HEA Tsang for no reason; he even HEA's in the midst of the battle.

Actually he has improved. Everybody in government knows about his work habits. He does not take telephone calls on Saturdays and Sundays. His underlings cannot reach him; he won't even receive his boss's call. It is nice to have this guy as your boss; but good luck with such a Chief Executive.

After skipping out the first forum, John Tsang has also skipped the next one hosted by the insurance sub-sector. What was the reason? He needed to go to Sheung Wan to have photos taken with boxer Rex Tso Sing-yu, who is preparing for a fight on March 11, 2017. If John Tsang is elected Chief Executive, he will have time to visit each of the 18 districts of Hong Kong/Kowloon/New Territories and have selfies taken to garner millions of Facebook LIKE's.

John Tsang is also famous for his meetings. As a principal official, he is a member of the Executive Council. According to other participants, HEA Tsang has practically said nothing at these meetings, never mind joining in discussions or offering ideas. During the meetings, he either toys with his mobile phone or he doodles with cartoon drawings. This is thoroughly consistent with his enthusiasm for finding joy and fun in life and refusing to debate other people on facts and policies. John HEA Tsang, truly a middle-class person enjoying his cup of coffee.

Internet comments:

- John Tsang refused to attend the Path To Democracy forum because "he only participates in forums with a high degree of represenativeness." What can citizens with no voting rights and no status say to Mr. Tsang?

- Rex Tso was not fighting for a world championship on Saturday. He was training to fight for a world championship title defense. (TVB) John Tsang said: "I love sports deeply. I have never stopped doing sports. I believe that I am the candidate that knows sports best. There should be no doubts."

- (TVB) Why did John Tsang not bother to go to the insurance sub-sector forum? Because 12 out of the 18 nominated Carrie Lam. So why waste his time on a lost cause?

- (TVB) If John Tsang knows sports best, then why didn't he get the nominations of the Sports sub-sector Election Committee members? Well, he said that he will try to get their votes.

- (Headline Daily) March 7, 2017. As Financial Secretary, John Tsang was in charge of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, Development Bureau, Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, and the Innovation and Technology Bureau. He is the chairman of the Steering Committee on Land Supply in charge of coordinating land supply for development purposes. Between December 2015 and August 2016, he called no committee meetings even as the government scoured for land, even floating the idea of using country parks for housing development.

In September 2016, the Wang Chau affair was big news. As a member of the Wang Chau/Queen's Hill Land Development Working Group, John Tsang did not attend because he said that he had to travel. With respect to the North East New Territories Development Plan, John Tsang aid on September 24, 2012 that he supports development in North East New Territories. He said that he started this project in 2010. But when the pan-democrats filibustered the initiative, such that the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council failed seven times to pass the bill, John Tsand said nothing.

After the physical clash at by protestors on June 13, 2014, many senior government officials called for the measure to pass in order not to delay other livelihood projects. John Tsang re-surfaced and posted on his blog to ask the Financial Committee approve the budget allocation.

When Secretary for Development Paul Chan (who reports to John Tsang) worked to develop government-owned land, John Tsand offered him no support. Instead, Carrie Lam (who was not in charge of the Development Bureau) had to come out to support North East New Territories development.

The Chief Executive job is tough. Does John Tsang have the courage and persistence to pick up this hot potato? Or will be just take it easy, to the point of even avoiding forums that he felt was 'unsafe'?

- (Ta Kung Pao) The reason why John Tsang does not participate in debates is that he is inarticulate and therefore afraid of losing. Everybody knows that he is less articulate than Carrie Lam. But a debate is not about speaking louder and faster. You have to have good thinking, knowledge and demeanor.

Being inarticulate may just be the excuse not to participate in public forums. Over the years, John Tsang has rarely been confronted in the public. He never touches controversial or sensitive topics. He underestimated the budget surplus each and every of his nine years as Financial Secretary but he makes people happy by handing out 'candies' next year. On the constitutional reform and Article 23 legislation, he began to waver as soon as he encountered opposition and flip-flopped 180 degrees.

Although John Tsang has certain shortcomings in his campaign, one must admit that his public relations work is not bad: he hikes around the country side; he eats BBQ pork on rice; he teaches fencing; he watches the marathon; he plays street basketball; etc. This makes him a friendly person. But as long as you have a good public relations team, this sort of thing is easy. But is this all that the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is expected to do?

#002. (SCMP) March 6, 2017.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang has for the first time publicly denounced the notion of Hong Kong independence in his annual work report, warning that the movement would “lead nowhere”. While Beijing’s firm rejection of such separatist sentiments is well-known, the mention of Hong Kong independence in the annual government report was unprecedented. It is likely to be read as a strong signal to candidates of the coming chief executive election that the winner would be expected to handle the issue without compromise.

(Bastille Post) March 6, 2017

What do the three Chief Executive candidates think about Hong Kong independence? Woo Kwok-hing said that everybody knows that the Central Government is against Hong Kong independence. Carrie Lam emphasized that Hong Kong in an inalienable part of China and the enactment of national security laws in Hong Kong will protect the personal safety of the citizens of Hong Kong. John Tsang said that Hong Kong independence is a "false issue" which the people of Hong Kong won't support, and therefore it is not worthy of discussion. Ever since he declared candidacy, he has said that very few people support Hong Kong independence, and so this was not a real issue that has to discussed seriously.

If Li Keqiang comes out now with a stern warning about Hong Kong independence, it would be a clash if John Tsang continues to insist that this is a false issue not worthy of discussion. John Tsang probably did not intend to clash with the Central Government, but his initial position turned out to clash with the latest statement from the Central Government.

By including Hong Kong independence as an issue is Li Keqiang's work report, it means that the Central Government treats this as a real issue, even as a serious issue.

In June 2016, the Chinese University of Hong Kong Center for Communication and Public Opinion Survey conducted a telephone survey. 17% of Hong Kong citizens support Hong Kong independence; amongst persons aged 15-24, it was almost 40%. If the Central Government continues to insist that this is a false issue not worthy of attention, we would probable consider them to be ostriches with their heads buried in the sand.

Over the past, the Central Government may have thought that Hong Kong independence was a false issue. After Occupy Central 2014 and Mong Kok riot 2016, they are beginning to regard this as a real issue.

I do not think that Hong Kong independence is a false issue. It is an issue about committing political issue. Many Hongkongers feel that Hong Kong belongs to China; the Basic Law says that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China; on the international scene, China is a major political, economic and military force. Hong Kong has no chance of attaining independence. If you use Hong Kong independence as a political goal to attract young people to support you, you will be leading Hong Kong into a dead-end fight against the Central Government.

Therefore the Hong Kong independence issue must be confronted. Do not bury your head in the sand. Do not let  young people harbor any illusions about this.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) March 7, 2017. Previously John Tsang believed that CY Leung unnecessarily started the whole Hong  Kong independence issue on his own. Therefore, the issue will go away by itself if no further attention is paid. In truth, CY Leung has to follow the orders of the Central Government on matters of national security/secession. If John Tsang does not even understand this basic fact, his political wisdom is very dubious. No wonder even Democratic Party chairman Woo Chi-wai called Tsang "a bit stupid."

#003. (SCMP) February 26, 2015.

After coffee and French movies, John Tsang Chun-wah has now moved on to his next bourgeois preference: food trucks. If the financial secretary has his way, food vans - like those featured in last year's Hollywood foodie movie Chef - may be cruising the streets of Hong Kong.

In the movie, the main character rediscovers his love for food while selling Cuban sandwiches and yucca fries from the open window of a food van travelling across the US. In Hong Kong, vans would more likely be touting fish balls and chow mein.

In Tsang's 2011 budget speech, he identified himself as being "middle class" - despite earning HK$301,000 a month back then - because he drank coffee and watched French movies. He was, perhaps understandably, ridiculed for this.

Now, in his budget speech, he has drawn from his time in the US for his latest idea. "I have asked relevant departments ... to facilitate alfresco dining operations, and to consider introducing food trucks, which are popular abroad, to the mix of Hong Kong's existing food scene," he said.

A government source said food trucks would sell more "gourmet" products, not "merely fish balls and egg waffles". Tsang, however, seems to be OK with the more common snacks. "Food trucks can sell fish balls. Food trucks can also sell beef offal. It's not a big problem," said Tsang. "Most important is ... trucks selling specialty foods will be regulated and have a hygiene guarantee and licensing."

(Ming Pao) February 22, 2017.

Atlantic Sunrise's food truck began being stationed at the Golden Bauhinia Square. It was Lunar New Year at the time, there were many pedestrians including tourist groups. Business volume ranged between $4,000 to $19,000 per day for $170,000 over 14 days. On the day before yesterday, the food truck moved to Central Habourfront. The location was far from the ferry piers with few pedestrians, and it faced the windy Victoria harbor. When our reporter bought a hot bun yesterday, it went cold within 10 seconds.

According the owner Mr. Cheung, they made $3,028 on the day before yesterday. It was worse yesterday in the drizzle when they made a mere $900. Mr. Cheung said that they invested $1.6 million to furnish a truck and a central kitchen. Apart from this investment, they needed to make $5,000 per day to break even to pay for rent, wages and materials.

(HK01) March 3, 2017.

On February 23, we went to the Central Harbourfront trial site. During the afternoon, fewer than 10 people walked past the Atlantic Sunrise truck per hour. Over the course of several hours, fewer than 10 persons made purchases. In the evening, a few Leon Lai fans passed by on their way to watch rehearsals. The operator said: "There was nothing we can do. We made only $900 today. If our owner Mr. Wong sees the figure, he might jump into the harbor. It is better if he does not come."

On March 6, the food trucks shuffled their locations. Ho Yuen Express took over the Central Harbourfront site. Based upon prior experience, they came up with a special discount on $1 chicken wings with a minimum purchase of 8 and a maximum purchase of 16 per person. "Central is going to be tough. I hope that we don't lose too much money. We knew that Central will be tough, but we have to find confidence to come up with ways. Everybody likes our chicken wings, so we are going to offer discounts here." Are they losing money with $1 chicken wings? Ho Yuen Express began selling friend squids outside the Wong Tai Sin Temple with floating price for the first three days before settling down on $58 per squid.

(Headline Daily) April 6, 2017.

Former Financial Secretary John Tsang boasted that he shared a dream with the people of Hong Kong with the food trucks included in his 2015-2016 budget speech. Since inception, there have been bad news about business hardships. Recently, the Tourism Commission ordered the travel agencies to transport busloads of tourists to these food trucks. According to the mainland tourists who were forcibly transported there, the food was too expensive.

What the government wants is to have special $25 meals for tourists that will be sold by the hundreds. The food truck operators do not think that they can cover their costs of operation.

From the viewpoint of the tourists, this is a situation in which the government wants to save John Tsang's face and bail out the food trucks. Therefore they are forcibly transporting mainland tourists right to the food trucks to make purchases. Does this sound like the "bad market practice" in which "tourists are forced to make purchases at designated locations" that the government adamantly opposes for the zero-cost tourist groups?

The food trucks were doomed from conception, because it did not arise from market factors. As John Tsang said upon losing his election, "I seemed to have shared a dream with the people of Hong Kong. Today, we finally woke up."

(EJ Insight) Food trucks: A bureaucrat’s dream that’s failed. By Stephen Vines. April 21, 2017.

It comes as absolutely no surprise to learn that the government’s absurd food trucks scheme is unraveling just two months after its less than stellar launch.

Its demise was predicted by myself and others before the scheme was launched, not least by people in the food industry who quickly identified why it was not going to work.

As matters stand, only 12 of the trucks chosen to take part in the scheme have actually got off the ground. One company has dropped out and another three are struggling to make their way through the bureaucratic fog before they can launch.

Four of the government-designated sites for the trucks have proved to be duds and so more sites are being offered.

Meanwhile, customers have been complaining about high prices, eyebrows have been raised over the lack of fulfillment of original claims about how this scheme will bring innovative and quality food to the market.

And as for the claim about how it would boost the reputation of local cuisine, well that’s just a joke.

The crucial problem here is the hubris and stupidity of the bureaucrats who dreamed up this scheme and even now remain in denial over their failure.

In other places where food trucks flourish, such as New York and London, they’ve been established by can-do entrepreneurs with lively ideas.

Costs are minimal because there is no overbearing bureaucracy stipulating what they must do, and, crucially, they move around catching customers at their convenience and are not stuck in fixed locations according to the dictates of officials sitting in air-conditioned offices filling out forms.

In Hong Kong regulation and control is the name of the game. It started with a bunch of po-faced bureaucrats and “food experts” presiding over a so-called Cook Off Challenge to determine who qualified to take part in the scheme.

The bureaucrats then hit the winners with a bulky set of regulations including seven annexes of rules and requirements.

Among these rules were stipulations about where they could go and, astonishingly, a requirement stipulating that menu changes could only be made following bureaucrat approval.

Whereas in other jurisdictions food trucks are generally operated from reconditioned second-hand vehicles, in Hong Kong operators had to buy new vehicles and meet fitting-out specifications making them very costly.

One operator spent HK$1 million, others have not publicly disclosed their costs but even this very large amount is not the end of the story because there is a raft of other expenses to be met before the trucks get anywhere near a customer.

So, instead of encouraging new entrants to the industry this scheme has a built-in bias towards existing food chains and the relatives of very rich people.

But even well-heeled truck operators need to be aware of the bottom line so their prices are accordingly high and customers have been complaining.

They can’t offer really simple, tasty food that Hong Kong people used to buy from street hawkers before they were hounded off the streets.

Why? Because the busybodies administering the farcical cook off were looking for something ever so sophisticated.

This meant that even much loved items had to have a twist; whatever that means.

Greg So, the designated government food boss, has announced some relaxation of the rules for the food truck scheme to stop it going entirely off the rails.

But this tinkering will not work; indeed it only serves to underline the basic fallacies of this enterprise.

There is a simple lesson to be learned here: government bureaucrats are lousy entrepreneurs and make entrepreneurs lousy when they regulate their every move.

Internet comments:

- Divergent expectations

Citizens' idea of a food truck: $6 for one skewer of fish balls
Former senior government official's idea of a food truck: $50 for a pineapple bun: "I was the one who successfully fought for it!"

- The food trucks were initially planned to cost $600,000 each. In practice, they cost more than $1 million each. How are the operators going to recoup their investment at $6 for one skewer of five fish balls?

- I have a solution: Let's convert the food trucks into hourly rental fuck trucks as Yau Wai-ching wants.

- John Tsang: "It's none of my business"
Gregory So (Secretary for Commerce) holding the time bomb known as the Food Truck

- The standard script: "My idea was brilliant. Unfortunately there were execution errors by other persons. So don't blame me."

#004. As Financial Secretary, John Tsang was expected to handle finances. Here are the summary statistics (HK01):
(yellow: estimated budget surplus/deficit;
blue: actual surplus/deficit;
red: discrepancy)

(SCMP) February 24, 2015.

Under the watch of former architecture student John Tsang Chun-wah, the gap between the government’s forecasts and reality concerning the budget deficit or surplus, has widened to HK$390 billion. Since he became financial secretary in 2007, he has managed an unbroken record of never getting a single budget projection right.

As Tsang unveiled his new budget this morning, he updated his surplus projection for 2014-15 to be HK$63.8 billion, HK$54.7 billion higher than the original projection of HK$9.1 billion. In the 2010-2011 budget, Tsang managed to turn an estimated HK$25 billion deficit into a buoyant HK$75 billion surplus, chalking up a sizable HK$100 billion black hole in the budget books.

The odds of guessing all six numbers for the Mark Six lottery might be higher than the likelihood of Tsang hitting his budget jackpot.

(EJ Insight) March 22, 2017.

John Tsang, one of the three candidates in Hong Kong’s chief executive election, has vowed to be a fence-mender as he sought support from both ends of the political spectrum.

Many Hongkongers have a favorable view of the former financial secretary, as evidenced in several opinion polls which have put Tsang at the top of the popularity charts in comparison to the other CE contenders — former chief secretary Carrie Lam and retired High Court judge Woo Kwok-hing.

The broad popular appeal of Tsang, who bears the nickname “Mr. Pringles” thanks to his resemblance to the potato chips mascot, is largely the result of deft image management by a team of social media-savvy aides, as well as the backing of a section of the media.

Led by Jimmy Lai’s Apple Daily, supporters of the pan-democrat camp have lost no time whipping up sentiments in favor of Tsang, despite the fact that the former finance chief was very much a part of the establishment until recently.

The supporters have gone to great lengths to portray a grim future for Hong Kong in the event that Tsang’s chief rival in the CE race — Lam — gets anointed to the top post in the March 26 election.

As we have seen, a key element of the strategy has been to run down Lam, highlighting her record of arbitrariness in governance and obsequiousness to Beijing during her time as the No. 2 official of the city.

The pan-democrats are supporting Tsang even though not many people have a clear picture as to how he will govern if he manages to knock out Lam and Woo.

It is an uncomfortable reality, given that Tsang’s own track record in the government has been less than stellar.

Now, one can ask this question: what did Tsang really achieve during his time as the city’s financial secretary for more than nine years?

No one can say exactly what Tsang had done, but almost all will remember the fact that throughout his nine years as Hong Kong’s CFO he constantly miscalculated the government books, in particular the fiscal surplus.

Six times he cried wolf that the government’s balance sheet would sink into the red, yet that never happened. For instance, in his budget for financial year 2010/11, Tsang warned of a deficit of HK$25.2 billion but as it turned out, the government actually recorded a whopping surplus of HK$75.1 billion during the year.

Overall, Tsang’s total misestimates during his tenure amounted to no less than HK$460 billion.

While he can be forgiven sometimes for poor arithmetic as he was no expert in finance when he took over the post – Tsang majored in architecture while in college — there is still the question of how he got his numbers way off consistently.

The finance chief also didn’t know how to put to use a huge fiscal reserve, which reached almost HK$860 billion (US$110.89 billion) at the end of last March, excluding HK$74 billion set aside for public housing development, a revenue windfall equivalent to 24 months of government expenditure.

Hong Kong has never been on such a strong fiscal standing, but Tsang was a scrooge who wasn’t too enamored of investing for the underprivileged and for the future of the society.

Rather, even as Hong Kong is far from any rainy day given the sheer size of its reserves, Tsang had in 2014 proposed austerity measures that mandated all government departments to trim recurrent costs by no less than 2 percent within a short span of three financial years.

The moneyed class may have hardly felt it, but the city’s ordinary folk have borne the brunt of Tsang’s moves to scale back government spending.

Due to reined-in expenditure, the city has seen some public services taking a hit. For instance, the average waiting time for specialist out-patient services at public hospitals is now over 50 weeks, and it’s a similar case for those applying for subsidized long-term elderly care services.

Schools get fewer funding, public libraries have had to shorten opening hours and even the frequency of routine street cleaning operations had to be slashed, thanks to Tsang’s whimsical spending cuts.

Tsang may have been an example of the laissez-faire philosophy, but for all the wrong reasons. A finance chief who is dismissive of the demands of the less-privileged and refused to give more other than some minor, one-off handouts may not be what Hong Kong needs, giving the growing wealth disparities and rising elderly population.

Tsang could have done a better job to ensure fairer use of the revenue pie. It is all the more so, as unlike counterparts in other economies, he didn’t have to bother about setting aside a large chunk of funds for national defense or diplomacy.

He had all the resources to do a lot of good to ensure the well-being of the average Hongkongers, but sadly he chose to be a miser.

#005. (Hong Kong Free Press) March 8, 2017.

Chief executive candidate John Tsang has said during a youth event on Tuesday that he is committed to serving Hongkongers.

The former finance chief said last September that “you always agree with your boss, no questions about that.” An attendee on Tuesday cited the quote and asked Tsang how he would balance the interests of Beijing and Hong Kong – the two parties the chief executive is answerable to.

Tsang replied that while chief executives have a duty to answer to the central government, their job is to serve the people of Hong Kong, Citizen News reported. “Hongkongers are my boss. They are the subject of my service,” Tsang said. He promised to fully convey the views of Hongkongers to Beijing if he was elected.

- (Small Business.chron.com)

In an organizational structure, “chain of command” refers to a company's hierarchy of reporting relationships -- from the bottom to the top of an organization, who must answer to whom. The chain of command not only establishes accountability, it lays out a company's lines of authority and decision-making power.

John Tsang has defined the chain of command as the Chief Executive reporting to 7.3 million bosses (=Hongkongers). 7.3 million people will have 7.3 million sets of ideas of how to run Hong Kong. How is conflict resolution going to occur? It is as easy as pie.

At the weekly management meeting, the Chief Executive goes to meet with the bosses (or those who can fit inside the Hong Kong Sports Stadium on a first-come-first-serve basis). The bosses start talking about the various things that they want to see done, and they get into heated arguments with each other. The Chief Executive takes out his mobile phone and starts scanning Facebook, not commenting or objecting to anything that the bosses have to say. When the bosses run out of steam, he calls for an adjournment. He will use S.F. Express to send a meeting video to Beijing, fulfilling his promise to fully convey the views of Hongkongers to Beijing.  The Chief Executive will have plenty of time left to watch soccer, drink coffee, eat pineapple buns, take hikes, enjoy French movies, teach fencing, etc.

-P.S. And when Beijing responds, the Chief Executive will post the response on his Facebook and invite comments. I completely get how easy life can be.

#006. (Ta Kung Pao) March 9, 2017. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSqYRiOc5yc&t=2791s

At the forum organized by IT Vision yesterday, John Tsang was asked what measures he would take to mend the social rifts. He said that the highly politicized environment in recent years has lessened the confidence of the young generation. It is necessary to have a government that the citizens accept with representatives from different parts of the political spectrum in order to rebuild confidence. But immediately someone in the audience shouted out that Tsang is lying: "John Tsang just came in through the back door! He did not want to come across the protestors! How is he going to bring Hong Kong back together?" This person also criticized John Tsang for only willing to meet with Election Committee members who have the right to vote but not with regular citizens who have no votes. This person was ordered by the organizers to leave.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 9, 2017. When John Tsang arrived at the site for the forum, Tam Tak-chi (People Power) and company were ready for him by the side door. They shouted various political demands at Tsang. Tsang said that he'll look into them and accepted a placard that sarcastically called Tsang the "Joint Master of the Pan-democrats." Then he hurried through the side door. Leung Kwok-hung and others waited at the front door and therefore missed him. Someone suggested to Leung to enter because he is an Election Committee member. Leung said no: "Do you think that I really want to see him?" Leung criticized Tsang for running away like a turtle hiding his head inside his shell. "He said that he is a Hong Kong lad, but he is actually a gutless lad." Then the group chanted "John Tsang, no lower chin" and "If you don't dare to meet with citizens, how can you be the Chief Executive?"

- The star of the IT Vision forum was actually Woo Kwok Hing, as he amazed the IT folks with his knowledge and vision. (Wen Wei Po) March 9, 2017.

At the outset, Woo Kwok-hing declared that he is not an IT expert. When asked what a tech startup really needs at this time and the kinds of possible improvements, Woo Kwok Hing asked the host to explain to him the meaning of a "tech startup". He said: "You have me stumped here" and "I really don't know." Then he explained: "I came here to listen to your opinions."

Normally, the forum host would move to another question. But the organizers really like Woo, so the IT sector legislator Charles Mok began to break the questions into a number of details, such as the complexity of the application process to seek financial aid for start-ups, the shortage of manpower, the difficulty of gaining business, etc.

Even though Mok had provided him with the lead, Woo still didn't know how to take advantage of the situation. He merely said: "The newly created Innovation and Technology Bureau should be dealing with these problems." And then he added: "The industry should write a letter to tell the authorities about these problems."

- (Wen Wei Po) March 9, 2017.

Woo Kwok-hing was asked how confident he was about being elected Chief Executive. Woo said: "80%." Where did this confidence from?" Woo said: "I have it to myself. I used my eyes to assess the situation and I don't think that I have 100% confidence." He said the IT Election Committee members should not abandon him just because they think that he has no chance of winning. He said that he is the best choice to restore harmony in Hong Kong.

How much does public opinion matter in the election? What standards should Democracy 300+ follow to vote? Woo said that public opinion is important, but he could not comment on what Democracy 300+ should do due to Woo having a 'conflict of interest.' He said: "They know what they are doing. They will vote based upon their own considerations. If they think that there are other factors, they will consider them."

- (TVB) March 9, 2017. Woo Kwok-hing thinks that the 326 Democracy 300+ should split their votes equally between himself and another candidate. He said that he has 80% confidence to win.

- The magic number is 600 votes to win. Half of 326 is 163. This means that Woo will have to get another 437 votes from the pro-establishment camp. Previously Woo managed to get zero nominations from the pro-establishment camp. What does Woo know that we don't? Is he really the mythical stealth candidate anointed by the Xi Jinping core?

- Round one:
John Tsang, 306 votes
Woo Kwok-hing, 308 votes
Carrie Lam, 580 votes
John Tsang is eliminated.

Round two:
Woo Kwok-hing, 614 votes
Carrie Lam, 580 votes
Woo Kwok-hing wins.

80% chance that this will happen (Final Fantasy 19)

Assumptions: Carrie Lam maxed out with her 580 nominations, as those who did not openly nominate anyone were in fact secret pan-democrats waiting for the secret ballot to vote. All the pan-democrats have to do is to eliminate one of their two candidates and the remaining one will win.

- Why does Woo Kwok-hing want Democracy 300+ to split their votes?
Because everybody knows that Carrie Lam has a lock on 800 votes (with only 600 needed to win). If Woo is going to lose, he would rather lose by Lam 800, Tsang 250 and Woo 150. He does not want to lose by Lam 800, Tsang 400, Woo 0, because that will really hurt his self-esteem. So please take pity on a 70-year-old grandpa and spare him some loose change, okay?

- (Ta Kung Pao) March 10, 2017. Woo Kwok-hing said that Democracy 300+ should split their votes between John Tsang and Woo Kwok-hing. There are three possible outcomes in the first round:

(1) Carrie Lam gets more than 600 votes and becomes Chief Executive. Everything else is moot by that point.

(2) Carrie Lam does not get the 600 votes, whereas Woo Kwok-hing gets more votes than John Tsang. John Tsang will be eliminated from the second round and Woo Kwok-hing will pick up Tsang's votes to win.

(3) Carrie Lam does not get the 600 votes, whereas John Tsang gets more votes than Woo Kwok-hing. Woo Kwok-hing will be eliminated from the second round and John Tsang will pick up his votes to win.

Specifically Woo Kwok-hing wants to avoid a situation in which John Tsang gets 400 votes (which is 326 Demcracy 300+ votes plus 74 pro-establishment votes) whereas Woo Kwok-hing gets 280 pro-establishment votes (and Woo says that he is very confident that he will get that many), then John Tsang eliminates Woo Kwok-hing but those 280 pro-establishment votes will go to Carrie Lam instead of John Tsang.

With respect to this scenario, Dennis Kwok said: "He should take a look at where he stands" because many pan-democratic electors don't agree.

- Everybody knows that the reason why John Tsang hates forum participation is that he is inarticulate -- he stutters as he grapples to find the words. By contrast, Carrie Lam is quick on her feet. This IT Vision forum was perfect for John Tsang, because each candidate faced the questions separately without confronting each other. So this was not a debate, as the pro-democracy organizers floated up soft balls for them to hit out of the ballpark. IT Vision had given 8 nominations to Woo Kwok-hing and 21 nominations to John Tsang. IT legislator Charles Mok nominated John Tsang.

(Wen Wei Po) March 9, 2017. John Tsang was asked whether he looked forward for all three candidates to be present to fight each other out, he said: "I don't particularly look forward to that. What is there to talk about?" He said that he has read the policy platform of his opponents, "and I don't see anything special." After the forum, he was asked again why he is not looking forward to a three-candidate forum, he changed his mind and said: "I was just kidding before."

(Oriental Daily) March 13, 2017. At the Professional Teachers Union forum, the candidates were not allowed to ask each other questions once more. Why? According to the organizers, they wanted it but one candidate did not want cross-questioning. Who was that candidate?

The organizers won't say who that candidate is. But it is easy to deduce by process of elimination. First of all, Woo Kwok Hing is trailing badly and has nothing to lose. He has been showing up at all the forums, large and small. So he would have loved to have cross-questioning in order to achieve a breakthrough. Secondly, whether you like her or not, Carrie Lam is famous for her tough battles at the Legislative Council sessions. So she would have loved to have cross-questioning too. This means the unnamed candidate must be the stuttering/muttering John Tsang. Previously, he had refused to attend the Path to Democracy forum because it was in enemy territory. But the Education sector is friendly territory. What was he afraid of? Frankly, John Tsang is over-worrying. On Facebook, the ANGRY's were piling up against Carrie Lam before she even uttered a single word. Meanwhile the opposite case was true for John Tsang. We live in a world in which people will support whoever they support and the debates be damned. If Richard Nixon debated JFK today, he would not have lost the presidential election.

- (HKG Pao) March 9, 2017. John Tsang was asked about the existing ordinance on "accessing a computer with dishonest intent." John Tsang said that the ordinance has many flaws. What is to be done? The law should be amended after consultation with various sectors of society. That is as good as having said nothing.

#007. (Bastille Post) March 9, 2017.

John Tsang posted of a photo himself at the G20 meeting in Hangzhou last September with Liu He, Minister of the Office of the Central Leading Group on Financial and Economic Affairs. Since Liu is close to Chinese president Xi Jinping, the implication is that John Tsang is favored by Xi Jinping.

Recently, Liu He was asked about this photo and whether he supports John Tsang as Chief Executive. Liu He said that he did not even know that John Tsang wants to run for Chief Executive at the time. He said that he was unhappy about how the photo is being used.

Perhaps you need to understand how things work in China. Only the Communist Party Secretary-general can call for a meeting of the Politburo. Once the Politburo decides to support Carrie Lam, nobody can pretend that they weren't aware and proceed to do something else. So there is no way that Liu He, being close to the Xi Jinping core, would go against Xi. Even if Xi Jinping has not made a choice, would Liu He dare to rush out and make his own choice subject to the possible misunderstanding that this was Xi's choice?

- One way or the other, John Tsang should not have posted this photo and used the ambiguity to advance his own candidacy.

- (Bastille Post) On RTHK, John Tsang was asked whether he was willing to take a post such as the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference if he does not become Chief Executive. Tsang said that he did not think that he would lose, so he has never given a thought to those other things. That's bravado and quite alright.

But John Tsang also added that his interests are in Hong Kong and he does not know much about mainland China. Politicos were aghast because how is someone going to be the HKSAR Chief Executive without being knowledgeable about mainland China?

#008. (Hong Kong Free Press) March 10, 2017.

Tsang was asked why he did not mention the legislation of archives laws in his platform.The candidate replied that he is also committed to promoting the law, but he could not include it in his platform because “there was too much to write about.” “My platform was originally 200-pages long. At first, I thought 20 to 30 pages would be enough, but the final version is now 75-pages long. It is very difficult to write down everything I want to do,” he said.

- Here is a different version of what happened: (Bastille Post) John Tsang's performance made many attendees shake their heads in disappointment. As Financial Secretary, John Tsang wrote plenty of blog posts.

So he was asked why while he was willing to share information on important issues such as structural deficits, political instability causing economic instability, etc on his blog, he does not say so to reporters? John Tsang's response failed to explain why.

John Tsang was pressed further as to why he rarely gives press interviews. He said that he has met with reporters. The truth is that in his nine years as Financial Secretary, he has been interviewed by foreign reporters but local interviews conducted in Chinese (including one about his book reading habits) were fewer than the fingers on one hand can count.

As for the archive law and freedom of information law that the media workers are concerned about, John Tsang said that his policy platform states his positions. When told that his policy platform did not contain any such, he said that his platform was originally more than 200 pages in length, meaning that he had plenty more that he wants to do but could not put it into the platform. The whole episode showed that he was not sufficiently familiar with his own policy platform. Will he enact these laws? John Tsang kept repeating that the government will have to study the issues before deciding.

All in all, John Tsang underestimated the sharpness of the questions from the reporters and he was also ill-prepared about policy issues. That is why his answers today were very 'clumsy.'

- (Wen Wei Po) John Tsang was asked why he seldom met the press prior to announcing his candidacy for Chief Executive. Most often he used his blog. John Tsang answered rather incoherently that he met every week with reporters during the election campaign period. Eventually he amended his answer to say that "If elected, it should be OK to have a press conference once a month."

- Here is yet another version: (SCMP) March 10, 2017. John Tsang Chun-wah, was asked why he seldom held sit-down interviews with the media before quitting to start his campaign. Tsang said he was often out of town for business and so chose instead to give stand-up briefings to reporters on the sidelines of public functions.

- Hey, people need to remember that we are living in 2017 now. Good communication means getting LIKE's on Facebook, as opposed to being grilled by reporters to give lucid answers to substantive questions.

- (Wen Wei Po) Woo Kwok-hing was first up, and he was asked about Wharf stopping its investment in i-Cable. Woo said that "it is hard to tell about business." He hopes that someone would take over i-Cable. "I can only say this much. I am not a white knight. I don't have the money." When asked how to improve the licensing system, he said: "I hope that I can do something. I will have to study it." He added: "Such as improving the licensing system." So the answer is also the question.

John Tsang was up next and he was not asked about broadcasting policies during his 30 minutes.

Carrie Lam was last up. The first question was about the awarding a license for Fantastic TV to Wharf (Holdings) but not to Ricky Wong's HKTV. Lam said that she cannot divulge government secrets. Generally speaking, the licensing policy should be loose and the government should encourage any investor who is not violating any regulations.

Lam said that broadcasting policies is handled by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, which reports to the Financial Secretary (John Tsang) and not to the Chief Secretary (Carrie Lam). She said: "I don't know if you have the chance to ask during the preceding session (with John Tsang) ... as long as no government secrets are divulged, you could have found out about the views of the principal official in charge of a certain policy?" The host asked Lam if she could provide a hint, because they did not have time to pose that question to Tsang. Lam said: "There doesn't seem to be any hint." Lam re-emphasized that she cannot disclose the details of the Executive Council discussions about broadcasting licenses. "I don't want to repeat what happened during the previous election, which all of you can remember."

A participant asked whether the government will respect public opinion when it comes to issuing broadcasting licenses. Lam said that the environment should be loose in principle. But she was never in charge of broadcasting policies, so she has nothing further to add.

#009. (Wen Wei Po) March 11, 2017. How the candidates handled petitions.

At the Journalists Association forum, the demonstrators from People Power, League of Social Democrats, Demosisto, Social Welfare for Low Income Persons Concern Alliance, Special Learning Rights Association, etc, gathered at 9am outside the site.

At 10:20am, John Tsang arrived to accept the petition letter. The demonstrators chanted: "Mr. Pringle is a miser, how are you going to help the grassroots!?" "I want standard working hours, I want universal retirement protection." They asked Tsang if he would rescind the judicial review against the four legislators. Tsang said that he will act in accordance with the law.

With respect to poverty relief, John Tsang told the demonstrators to read his policy platform. The demonstrators were not satisfied because he did not answer at all. They shouted: "It is shameful to avoid answering!" John Tsang turned around the leave, and the din got louder. Eventually John Tsang's campaign office sent someone out to receive the petition letter.

At 10:40am, Carrie Lam's campaign deputy manager Chan Yung arrived to get ready. People Power members cursed Chan out with obscenities. Chan laughed as if he was merely hearing dogs barking. Upon learning that Carrie Lam will accept the petition letter, Tsang Kin-sing told the young woman next to him to grab Carrie Lam's hand when she arrived so that Lam can't run away.

At 11:10am, Carrie Lam came to receive the petition letter. She shook hands with the young female demonstrator who grabbed her hands. Lam knew that she was trapped, but she kept her smile. A demonstrator asked: "If elected, will you have bottom-up youth policies?" Lam answered: "Of course I support that! My policy platform wants young people to participate in politics. I welcome young people with the suitable qualifications to join the government." Another person asked how she would help the grassroots. She said: "Social welfare expenditure rose by 70% while I was the chairperson of the Poverty Relief Committee." The person followed up: "So why is wealth inequality getting worse then?" Lam said: "That is why we need to continue to work." Because Lam had to receive the petition, the female demonstrator had to let go of her hands.

#010. (Oriental Daily) March 11, 2017.

When the Grassroots Housing Concern Alliance invited John Tsang to visit residents of subdivided and rooftop units, Tsang decided that he would only visit the subdivided units but not the rooftop units. Why? The Alliance cited the John Tsang election campaign team that "Mr. John Tsang has bad cardiac and knee conditions" and therefore the decision was not to visit the rooftop units.

The John Tsang Election Campaign Office clarified that they discussed with the Alliance. They said that the rooftop units require walking up eight floors. So to avoid aggravating an old knee injury, they decided not to do it. The Office said that they did not mention any cardiac problems. They insisted that John Tsang's heart was healthy and normal!

- Well, it is good manners that if someone takes the day off work in order to meet you and you cancel, you should be telling them as early as possible. They shouldn't have to find out from Facebook at 10pm that you are not coming.

- (SCMP) October 4, 2009.

Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah, recovering from heart surgery last weekend, said yesterday his work would not be affected by his illness, but it had reminded him of the importance of having 'a splendid life'.

Six days after emergency surgery at Queen Mary Hospital, Tsang was discharged yesterday morning to join his family for Mid-Autumn Festival celebrations.

Tsang, 58, hopes to return to work as soon as possible. His press secretary said Tsang would rest at home and could resume work as early as this week.

Leaving the hospital in good spirits but still looking a little pale, the financial secretary read a short statement, beginning with special thanks to the public, and to hospital and ambulance staff for their care over the past few days.

Tsang also showed his confidence in being able to return to work in a short period of time.
'I would like to resume work as soon as possible,' he said. 'I believe this [operation] will definitely, definitely not affect my work in the future. I will pay more attention to my health and continue my service to the public.'

Asked if the operation had given him cause to reflect on life, a smiling Tsang replied: 'I think what is important for us is to have a splendid life for every minute and every second; also to get our jobs done.' Tsang, who practised kung fu in his younger days, offered special thanks to those who had brought him kung fu tips during his recovery in hospital.

While saying that Tsang had fully recovered, Dr Stephen Lee Wai-luen, the head of the hospital's cardiology division, also noted that the financial secretary had been an urgent case when admitted.
'His blood pressure readings could hardly be measured at the time,' Lee said, referring to the critical moment when Tsang was admitted to hospital last Sunday.

Tsang underwent balloon angioplasty - a procedure in which narrowed arteries are widened by inserting balloons - just hours after returning from the G20 leaders' summit in the United States. Lee said Tsang had suffered from a heart attack caused by a restriction of blood flow to the heart muscle. About 10 per cent of patients would suffer a recurrence. He said Tsang could continue practising kung fu but would need to be promptly admitted to hospital in case of another heart attack.

- Well, this should have been a routine campaign stop, so it is hard to see how this should become a disastrous public relations coup.

(Oriental Daily) March 12, 2017.

The Grassroots Housing Concern Alliance quoted John Tsang's campaign office to say that "Mr. John Tsang has bad cardiac and knee conditions" so they decided not to go up to the roof top.

Previously in 2009, John Tsang underwent balloon angioplasty. When he announced that he will run for Chief Executive, reporters asked him about his health. John Tsang replied that with so many people asking him about whether his heart could take it, the best thing is to have a fight with him so that everybody will know the condition of his heart. But now it turns out that he is not even able to walk up a few flights of stairs, so does he have a relapse in his cardiac problem?

In the evening, the John Tsang campaign office said that they told that the rooftop was eight stories up with no stairs, so they decided that Tsang should not go up there because of the fear of a recurrence of a knee problem. The office emphasized that they did not say anything about any cardiac problems. They emphasized that John Tsang's heart is normal and healthy!

(Wen Wei Po) March 12, 2017.

The Grassroots Housing Concern Alliance disclosed that John Tsang refused to visit rooftop apartments because his "heart and knee are in poor condition." Tsang also held a discussion of his housing policies inside an air-conditioned room. When visiting a sub-divided apartment, an Alliance member brought out some mouse/cockroach traps to show how bad conditions were, but John Tsang refused to look at them. At the discussion forum, John Tsang did not promise any substantive housing policies.

Another organization ("The Hong Kong Sub-divided Apartments Concern Platform") said that John Tsang climbed up to the eighth floor in spite of a knee problem in order to visit an old lady with heart condition living by herself.

John Tsang's campaign office told Apple Daily that John Tsang did not want to aggravate an old knee injury, therefore he only visited a sub-divided apartment on the eighth floor in a building without elevators. The campaign office said that they did not refuse to visit a rooftop unit on another eight-story building without elevators.

#011. (Wen Wei Po) March 12, 2017.

Yesterday actor Chow Yun Fat was dining at the Kung Wo Dou Bun Chong in Kowloon City when he came across Chief Executive candidate John Tsang by chance. He praised Tsang who had previously underwent balloon angioplasty: "You have a tough fate" ... "You survived balloon angioplasty" ... "you are tough" ... "I support you getting this 'dead job', as you said before that the Chief Executive job is a lousy one."

But was this encounter so accidental? John Tsang said that he has known Chow Yun Fat for years. Chow Yun Fat told Citizen News that he supports John Tsang as Chief Executive: "I support him. If I don't support him, what am I doing here for!"

What do you think happened? Did Chow Yun Fat come because he was told that John Tsang would be down at Kung Wo Dou Bun Chong? Or was Chow Yun Fat misquoted?

Facebook's Hong Kong/Taiwan Regional Public Policy director George Chen posted a photo of Chow Yun Fat with John Tsang. In response to the comment: "There is no way he can lose given that they even run into each other." Chen replied: "Is Brother Fat so easy to run into by chance! Ha ha! You understand."

#012. (SCMP) March 11, 2017.

No one sitting at the government’s top decision-making body would support former financial secretary John Tsang Chun-wah as the next chief executive after witnessing his “laid back” governing style, according to Executive Council member professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung.

In an exclusive interview with the South China Morning Post on Saturday, Li said while the public might view Tsang as a “gentle and nice guy”, the city’s next leader had to be more than that. Former chief secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was a better choice, he said.

“Executive Council (Exco) members have worked with [Lam and Tsang] for a number of years and have seen how they performed. I do not think a single Exco member is supporting Tsang,” Li, a local delegate to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, said in Beijing.

“Carrie is extremely hands on, very dedicated and will tackle problems. She will not shy away from difficulties. John is a very nice person, he will sit back, relax and let you get on with it.” Li labelled the laid-back management style as “the worst thing” for Hong Kong – a city that is already facing severe competition with Singapore, Shenzhen and Shanghai.

He added that Tsang’s hands-off approach had already affected the performance of officials under his purview.

“I do not want to name names, but you look at Greg So [Kam-leung],” he said, referring to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development. “HKTV was out, Cable TV is now closing down and even the food trucks is a disaster ... [Tsang] is laid back and he let this guy get on with it. It’s disaster after disaster after disaster.”

The city’s infant food truck scheme, first floated by Tsang and spearheaded by So, was dealt a heavy blow recently when an operator quit before it had even hit the road. Other operators complained that excessive registration requirements and red tape had driven up the cost.

Li dismissed suggestions that Tsang’s wide-ranging support made him a better candidate to mend divisions in the city, and went on to accuse the former financial secretary of “being manipulated” by pan-democrats.

He said Tsang’s flip-flopping over his election manifesto, especially his decision not to pursue the completion of a national security law by 2020, proved he had “no integrity” and could be easily swayed.

#013. (YouTube) March 13, 2017 Professional Teachers Union forum for the Chief Executive Election

Debate statements:

Carrie Lam: I worked on the constitutional reform for 20 months. I feel deeply about the controversies in society over the Chief Executive election, or the so-called social rifts today.

John Tsang: I know why Carrie won't restart constitutional reform. She screwed up once before, so why screw up again?

[Wait a minute! During the period for constitutional reform, weren't you on the same government team?]

Post-debate statements to the press:

John Tsang: The constitutional reform went on for two years. I participated in the bus parade. But I really did not participate in many of the other things.

John Tsang: Actually the government is an organization with collective decision-making.

John Tsang: Internally, we discussed many things. Policies and other specific measures.  Everybody participated and discussed. This should be our collective responsibility. If the government made any mistakes in the past, then I must admit that I bear some responsibility.

Carrie Lam: On a big issue such as constitutional reform, the lead was taken by the three-person group headed by me. The whole team. The whole team with political accountability, including the bureau secretaries and their deputies and assistants all took part. If it is said that one person "screwed up", then this is not consistent with the team spirit at the time.

#014. (Wen Wei Po) March 18, 2017.

On the day before yesterday, John Tsang went down to the West Kowloon Centre to meet with citizens. Kwai Ching District Councilor Ray Chow Wai-hung (Neighbourhood and Worker's Services Centre) posted a video of his encounter. Chow had assumed that Tsang would be as nice as his campaign promotion says. But reality was obviously fairly cruel.

Chow went up to Tsang and explained that he is the Kwai Ching District Councilor (Neighbourhood and Worker's Services Centre). Tsang wanted to turn around and leave. Chow quickly added: "I support you." This drew Tsang to stay and listen to some more. Chow asked Tsang to say something about grassroots and labor rights. "So that more grassroots can under his ideas of governance and have more reasons to support him." John Tsang said, "Thanks" and turned around to shake hands with his other fans. Chow wrote on his Facebook: "It seems that he is always wonderful in the imagination of the people of Hong Kong, and his true self is something else."

Once the video came out, John Tsang fans jumped in. "After watching this video, I came to one conclusion: Ray Chow asked an unsuitable question in an unsuitable environment." "What is the difference between this and a provocation from the Love Hong Kong people?" "Chow has always supported Tsang but now he is belittling him. The reason was that Chow did not get to exploit the situation. Chow is petty-minded and inteigrity-free. He is a shame for Neighbourhood and Worker's Services Centre."

Chow tried to explain: "His policies for grassroots and workers are very faraway from our beliefs. So I asked him to say something ... I posted the video because I wanted Mr. Tsang to address the policy issues for grassroots and labor rights. Why would I attack him if he can explain how his ideas can solve problems? This video can either help or hurt him -- it all depends on how his team deals with it. Even if he could not respond in detail right there, he can write about it or make a video about it later. Why can't he look at the problem squarely? Why does he want to deal with the person who asked the question?"

But John Tsang fans responded with: "Ray Chow, you are just a small potato. Why should John Tsang respond to you?" "Maybe you need to be elected Legislative Councilor first before you get to speak to John Tsang. Unfortunately, your party leader Leung Yiu-chung won't even exercise his right to speak at the Legislative Council." "John Tsang has no idea who you are." Chow wondered: "When John Tsang refused to consider the issues about the welfare and rights of grassroots/labor because he doesn't know the person who raised the question, now that is a big problem!"

#015. (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. March 21, 2017.

... After several election forums, the commentaries were consistent: Carrie Lam knows her stuff, John Tsang delivers quotable remarks, Woo Kwok Hing is good for jokes.

Quotable remarks are never made up at the spur of the moment, unless you are a genius like Charles Ho. Clearly, HEA Tsang is no Charles Ho. Tsang has said that he has a "great team that money can't buy" who gives him ideas. So those quotable remarks seemed to be part of the team effort.

... The main purpose is to use these sound bites to cover his lack of substance and accomplishments. After serving in the government for 35 years, he is unable to present any noteworthy accomplishment. He only makes clever remarks at the election forums. He also attributed all the problems with land supply, constitutional problems, housing crisis as the faults of other persons. Although he was the third ranking Hong Kong SAR government official, he does not appear to be responsible for anything in Hong Kong.

Last week on radio, John Tsang gladly described that he was almost fired by Chief Executive CY Leung in 2015. Why is an almost fired Financial Secretary our greatest hope for Chief Executive? I am befuddled. If "almost being fired" is a political accomplishment, then why did he spend so much time writing a policy platform?

- If Ronald Reagan got away with telling stand-up comedy jokes about everything, then why can't John Tsang? Well, the difference was that Ronald Reagan was telling his jokes off the cuff, whereas John Tsang was reciting the package that his team prepared for him.

#016. (Epoch Times) March 21, 2017.

It is a mere five days before the Chief Executive election, and the situation has changed drastically. We received revelations from sources close to Zhongnanhai that certain members of the Chinese intelligence agency in Hong Kong has given a secret brief to Xi Jinping -- the votes in their hands have swung towards John Tsang. One reason was that Carrie Lam who is supported by the China Liaison Office has too low popularity, and chaos will continue in Hong Kong if she is elected. Xi Jinping does not want chaos in Hong Kong because that will affect China's international image. According to our information, many pro-China groups have switched over to support John Tsang. According to the confidential assessment of one Chinese intelligence service, Tsang has a 65% chance of winning.

In this election, the Politubro member Zhang Dejiang and the China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming are part of the Jiang Zemin clique. They have been canvassing votes for Carrie Lam, saying that "Carrie Lam is the only candidate supported by the Central Government" and "John Tsang will not be appointed by the Central Government." But after the Two Meetings, the two Zhang have lowered their profiles and not longer showing their preferences. Only a few Electors such as Chan Wing-kei, Tam Wai-chu, Rita Fan, Charles Ho etc are still supporting Carrie Lam.

We received information from sources close to Zhongnanhai that Xi Jinping has said that "there will be no position on the Chief Executive which will be elected by the Hong Kong electors." Premier Li Kiqiang said at the closing of the Two Meetings that One Country Two Systems will be unshaken. In other words, Li meant to say that One Country Two Systems had been shaken up. Thus the China Liaison Office no longer dared to be so blatant as in compelling the Electors to take photos of their ballots previously.

Earlier our exclusive report said that Zhang Xiaoming was criticized for his overt support of Carrie Lam during the Two Meetings. Zhang will be transferred three months later, perhaps even earlier. In other words, Xi Jinping has set up "limitations" to prevent the Jiang Zemin clique from directly manipulating the Chief Executive election in order to defend One Country Two Systems. Thus, many of the Electors will no longer heed the orders of the China Liaison Office.

According to the assessment of the Chinese government, John Tsang has a 65% or better chance of winning. Previously, the pro-Communist, pro-Jiang Zemin media estimated that Carrie Lam has a 95% chance of winning. According to our source, some of the DAB electors have already swung towards John Tsang. A number of DAB senior members were summoned by pro-Communist groups to Shenzhen and asked to vote for John Tsang. At present, Carrie Lam's mainstay is in the Commerce sector, but some of these votes are affected by external circumstances. Therefore the next few days will be critical.

- When Epoch Times endorses John Tsang, it is the kiss of death. What is the snowball's chance in hell for the DAB to support the Epoch Times' favorite son?

#017. (Wen Wei Po) March 21, 2017.

On March 11, more than ten members of the John Tsang campaign team went to the Lok Fu MTR station with three life-size cardboard dolls of John Tsang. At first, citizens thought that John Tsang was coming in person. But they were told that Tsang would not be there. However, the campaign team told citizens to get their pictures taken with the cardboard dolls. A housewife said: "Of course I am leaving. It is stupid to have a photo taken with a cardboard figure. Does he think that he is a movie star? I am better off hurrying to do my food shopping."

Some citizens went over to get their pictures taken. But it was awkward to shake hands with the figure, because the cardboard hand was held up at the level of the chest. Even adults have to life their hands in order to shake hands. Young children could not even reach the hand.

On this day there was a period of 20 minutes in which nobody wanted to have their pictures with the paper doll. The photographer was twiddling his thumb out of boredom.

That afternoon, the real-life John Tsang made a flash appearance. He spoke to the large group of reporters surrounding him. Citizens could not get anywhere close. "Is he here to come into contact with citizens, or is he looking for media exposure?" said one citizen.

A citizen on a wheelchair came by. John Tsang's team and the reporters had taken up the entire sidewalk, so there was no way for this citizen to get through. A campaign worker looked at the citizen but did nothing until John Tsang was done. No wonder John Tsang said that "money can't buy this team" because they really look after his interests. Once John Tsang, the team packed up. The telecommunication service sales people returned to the scene, grumbling that the John Tsang had chased away the potential customers.

On March 12, the candidates attended the Professional Teachers Union forum. Various groups were demonstrating outside. Woo Kwok Hing came out first to accept a petition. Then Carrie Lam and her entire team came out to listen to their petitions. The demonstrators expected John Tsang to do the same. Unfortunately only two of John Tsang's aides came out. One of them had both hands in his pockets and the other stretched open his hands as if he couldn't care less. They rejected the request for John Tsang to personally accept the petition letters. So there was nothing doing.

On the afternoon of March 12, the three cardboard John Tsang's traveled to Causeway Bay. Our observation was that very few people in bustling Causeway Bay stopped to have their pictures taken. The campaign team wanted citizens to write their signatures in support. One senior citizen wanted to offer his ideas to the campaign team. After listening to a few minutes, the campaign team member told the old man to just sign. The old man was angry: "Since you didn't listen to me, I am not going to write a single word with that pen!"

#018. (HKG Pao)

In the final stage of the Chief Executive election, the Yellow Ribbons are telling everyone that John Tsang is "attempting to rally public opinion to coerce the Central Government." All along John Tsang has said that he is the only candidate who can united all the forces in Hong Kong, including the pan-democrats, the pro-establishment camp, the business community and the Central Government. But before he is Chief Executive, he is already leading the pan-democrats against the Central Government? This is going to lose the support of the votes of the business community that he desperately needs to eke out a win. So this has John Tsang worried and he sent out a statement to the media to say that this is untrue.

In the statement, it is said that "We believe that all who citizens who support John Tsang absolutely do not oppose the Central Government." So what does that means? Does John Tsang believe that Jimmy Lai, Benny Tai, the Civic Party, etc who have publicly stated their support for him are on the same side as the Central Government?

Alan Leong (Civic Party) stated clearly that the Civic Party will vote for John Tsang to fight the Central Government. On one hand, John Tsang happily picks up the votes of the Civic Party. On the other hand, John Tsang pledges fealty to the Central Government. Which is the real John Tsang? If the trust of the Central Government is very important for the job of Chief Executive, then can this two-faced person be trusted? Conversely, if it turns out that he is completely loyal to the Central Government, then he breaks whatever promises he made to Jimmy Lai and company. All hell will break loose as everything that he does will be opposed, filibustered and protested against. How is that suppose to bring Hong Kong together?

Meanwhile informed sources say that there are two versions of John Tsang's clarification. The sanitized Version A was publicly released to the media. A Version B was send to the Central Government leaders and other officials in charge of Hong Kong-Macau affairs. This Version B fawned upon the Central Government with plenty of words such as "guarantee", "promise", "trust me", etc. However, the contrast between the two versions makes one wonder whether the "clarification" was just public relations again. According to the sources, the Central Government does not buy into this.

#019. (Hong Kong Economic Journal) March 24, 2017.

Here are five mistakes that John Tsang made.

#1. The non-establishment media and politicians wanted to be kingmakers, and so they chose John Tsang as their man. Such a "kiss of death" should not be accepted lightly. John Tsang failed to maintain a distance from them, which makes the Central Government wary of him. The more actions the non-establishment camp takes on Tsang's behalf, the wariness increases. Conversely, attempts to smear Carrie Lam only makes the Central Government trust her even more so. Once this situtation arises, the Central Government cannot help but begin to indicate who their choice is. There are many ways to given signals. The China Liaison Office and the Hong Kong-Macau Affairs Office under Zhang Dejiang have made their positions very clear. Even the Politburo has made a decision. Some non-establishment people still insist that Xi Jinping has not made any decisions. But that should be squashed by the 40-second handshake with CY Leung upon his elevation to Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference vice-chairman. Some non-establishment people also say that John Tsang has the support of the real estate moguls. But the Li family has come out firmly for Carrie Lam. Is this important? John Tsang thinks so, because he said that the 3-second handshake with Xi Jinping at the G-20 meeting in Hangzhou encouraged his candidacy. Clearly he was looking for an anointment from the highest state authority. You can't blame him, because the constitutional system is such that the elected Chief Executive must still be appointed by the Central Government.

#2. John Tsang is easy-going. Even though his image of being HEA is hard to remove, people generally think of him as an easy-going guy. People would like to see the Chief Executive election being conducted in a nice way. Yet, his supporters have pushed him towards extremism. In the two televised debates, John Tsang was grumpy and grouchy. He spend very little time on explaining his policy platform. Instead, he launched personal attacks against Carrie Lam calling her "Social Rift 2.0" and he was utterly dismissive of Woo Kwok Hing.

Meanwhile Carrie Lam did the opposite. In the media-organized forum, she smiled all the time. In the Elector forum, most of the questions were hostile and directed at her but she handled the situation with great composure. Why did they behave so different? Both John Tsang and Carrie Lam came from the government and they have their own civil servant fans. If the two engaged in outright war, the civil service will be torn apart afterwards. Whoever wins will inherit a divided civil servant force. Carrie Lam thinks that she will win and she does not want a divided civil servant force. Therefore she was willing to take the barbs. By comparison, who do you think is the one who wants to create social rifts?

#3. There have been many smears in newspapers and social media. Normally, one attacks the target's strongest suit. For example, Carrie Lam is known to be hard-working, serious and demanding. So out comes an anonymous administrative officer who complains that Carrie Lam does not care about people feelings and therefore she is extremely unpopular. If Carrie Lam is elected, there will be a mass exodus of civil servants. There is also the use of ANGRY emoticons to flood the Facebook of Carrie Lam on everything posted there. This makes the Angry Young People feel very good, but it is counterproductive for the Central Government and the pro-establishment camp.

The smear campaign is not only directed at Carrie Lam, but Woo Kwok Hing has also copped more than his share. He has been accused of being a Chinese Communist mole. The pro-establishment camp is delighted to see this sort of internecine fighting. How can using conspiracy theories to smear people be good for social harmony? I don't think John Tsang likes to do this sort of thing, but certain media and public relations people are leading him down this way, and he is not courageous to denounce those actions.

#4. John Tsang insists that he can unite Hong Kong. If elected, he will cause rifts within the pro-democracy camp as well as the pro-establishment camp. Many pro-establishment people support Carrie Lam. If John Tsang wins, they will be looking for people to blame. After all, the pan-democrats number only 326 out of 1194 electors, so there are traitors everywhere to be rooted out. So far only some members of the Liberal Party have declared for John Tsang. So the number of traitors must number 300 or so.

The pro-democracy camp have always hated Financial Secretary John Tsang's budgets. They always curse him out and filibuster as long as possible. They are willing to overlook these past histories in order to get him elected. Once elected, the Central Government will make John Tsang state his positions on the important controversial issues such as constitutional reform, Article 23 legislation, etc. How can he please the Central Government and the pro-establishment camp at the same time? If Tsang won't side with the pro-establishment camp, they will bite him.

In truth, John Tsang is not a centrist. He has built a coalition of a small number of pro-establishment people and a large number of pro-democracy people. A centrist needs to be supported by large numbers of pro-establishment and pro-democracy people. I don't see him having done this.

#5. John Tsang is counting on the secret ballot. He believes that some people who have openly nominated Carrie Lam will vote for John Tsang during the voting by secret ballots. Carrie Lam has a lot of iron-clad votes in the pro-establishment camp. During the nomination phase, she obtained 580 signatures. But it was clear that the Hong Kong Island-District Council, the publishing industry, the entertainment industry, the Federation of Trade Unions, the DAB members were being held in reserve. To win during the secret balloting, John Tsang needs to mobilize 300 or so pro-establishment voters to switch to him as a group. 

In recent days, the Central Government is no longer sending signals about who they are supporting. The Central Government must know that the case is closed and nothing more needs to be done. The non-establishment people must know this too. So why are they still smearing Carrie Lam in support of John Tsang? Because the non-establishment media and politicians need an environment of social rifts in order to thrive. They don't want Carrie Lam winning the election as well as public support. They want her crippled with low public support.

#020. (SCMP) March 22, 2017.

Hong Kong’s anti-graft agency has launched an investigation into chief executive candidate Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor’s role in a deal to build a version of Beijing’s Palace Museum in the city, according to lawmaker Claudia Mo Man-ching.

During a Legislative Council debate on Hong Kong’s tourism policy on Wednesday, some lawmakers said the Palace Museum would become a major tourist attraction once completed in 2022.

When it was Mo’s turn to speak, she revealed that the Independent Commission Against Corruption had told her recently it has “opened a file” on her complaint involving Lam in January.

“Several colleagues mentioned that West Kowloon’s Palace Museum could become Hong Kong’s new tourist attraction, but I doubt it because questions were raised regarding the decision to build it,” she said.

“In early January, I reported to the ICAC over Carrie Lam’s handling of the Palace Museum deal, as I thought there could be an inappropriate transfer of benefits involved. It could constitute misconduct in public office. The ICAC replied and said it would open a file and [investigate] it,” she said.

But the ICAC responded by saying that “according to its policy, it, in general, will not comment on individual incidents”.

(SCMP) Leave the ICAC out of petty political games. By Alex Lo. March 24, 2017.

The political exploitation of the Independent Commission Against Corruption continues apace by shameless politicians. The latest is initiated by Claudia Mo Man-ching, formerly of the Civic Party.

Funny how just days before the chief executive election, the pan-democratic lawmaker suddenly insinuates in the legislature that the ICAC has launched a probe into front runner Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor.

Apparently, Mo complained in early January and the graft buster “opened a file” over Lam’s role in launching a plan to build a version of Beijing’s Palace Museum in the West Kowloon arts hub when she was still chief secretary. Mo alleged there had been “an inappropriate transfer of benefits” that could amount to “misconduct in public office”.

As mud-slinging goes, this is just amateurish. Even political mud-slinging has standards, and Mo clearly has no ideas, as she doesn’t with anything else. But this kind of abuse of the ICAC has been committed by pan-democratic politicians in the past, most infamously in the case of former Executive Council member Franklin Lam Fan-keung, who had to resign but was later fully exonerated.

Actually, if I go through the trouble of reporting to the ICAC that there might have been “an inappropriate transfer of benefits” in Mo’s involvement in the Palace Museum case, the ICAC would be obliged to open a file on Mo, too.

I don’t need to offer any evidence, just tell a story of suspicion, and I can write a column that Mo is now being investigated. “Opening a file” with the ICAC can mean anything, like taking down names and addresses.

The real thing is to launch a formal or active investigation, and investigators don’t tell you that.

As head of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority, Lam may or may not have bypassed established bidding procedures over the museum. But a corrupt transfer of benefits – to whom?

What is most disturbing about dirty tactics like Mo’s is that they are undermining the credibility of the ICAC. If the ICAC opens a file, people claim an investigation is under way. But if, as is usually the case, nothing comes out of it, they question its integrity and whether it has been under government pressure. They do all this – just to score a few political points or make a soundbite for TV news.

Internet comments:

- ICAC Reporting Corruption FAQ

Q : Can the complainant mention to other people any details of the complaint he has lodged with the ICAC?

A : No. Any person, including the complainant, who discloses details of investigation or the identity of the subject person to other people without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, shall be guilty of an offence under Section 30 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.

CAP 201 Prevention of Bribery Ordinance - Section 30 Offence to disclose identity, etc. of persons being investigated

(1) Any person who knowing or suspecting that an investigation in respect of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed under Part II is taking place, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, discloses to—

(a) the person who is the subject of the investigation (the subject person) the fact that he is so subject or any details of such investigation; or

(b) the public, a section of the public or any particular person the identity of the subject person or the fact that the subject person is so subject or any details of such investigation,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $20,000 and to imprisonment for 1 year.

Hong Kong Basic Law Article 77

Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be immune from legal action in respect of their statements at meetings of the Council.

If Claudia Mo got on radio and told this story, she would be facing a fine of $20,000 and imprisonment for 1 year. But she did it during a Legislative Council meeting on tourism policy. Therefore she has immunity.

#021. (SCMP) March 24, 2017.

A veteran leftist has hit out at chief executive candidate John Tsang Chun-wah, saying Beijing doesn’t trust him because he ignored its warning against joining the race, and lacked commitment in opposing 2014’s Occupy protests.

Lo Man-tuen, who sits on the board of the campaign of Tsang’s rival Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, also accused the former financial secretary of being “an agent of pan-democrats” and backed by the United States.

Two days before the election Lo, vice-chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference’s (CPPCC) subcommittee on foreign affairs, wrote a 6,800-word article in the Chinese-language newspaper Sing Tao Daily, titled: “Authoritative source reveals why Tsang is not supported by the central government”.

Citing his source, the veteran leftist wrote that Tsang’s first problem was his “lack of principle on major issues” – the pro-democracy Occupy protests and last year’s Mong Kok riot – along with his “laid-back” working style, remaining silent in cabinet meetings and focusing on drawing pictures in his notebook.

He said Tsang failed to join the chief executive and other officials in a signature campaign against the mass pro-democracy sit-ins, that “challenged Beijing’s authority”. He noted Tsang even expressed appreciation for the local film Ten Years,which was considered a smear on “one country, two systems”.

The second problem, Lo said, was that “Tsang has become a political figure that runs counter to the central government”, as he had chosen to ignore signals from Beijing against his running for the top job.

Lo claimed the third problem was Tsang’s relationship with the pan-democrats and the United States. “Tsang got most of his nominations from the democratic camp; for sure he was the agent of the interest of pan-democrats,” he wrote.

Lo also claimed it was “an open secret” that Tsang got US backing. As evidence he cited Tsang’s support from former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang and Democratic Party founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming, both of whom Beijing loyalists see as US-friendly.

Internet comments:

- (Silent Majority for HK) March 23, 2017.

In an interview with Citizen News, John Tsang said that he did not participate in any discussion about the use of tear gas on September 28, 2014. "I had no idea how the decision was made. There were no group discussions." He did not know whether Carrie Lam participated either. John Tsang said that Occupy Central could have been avoided -- the best way to deal with it is not to let it happen, instead of dealing with it after it happened.

- The Central Government is looking for a person who accepts the responsibility of dealing with complex situations. A person who is shifty and evasive does not qualify.

- As the third ranking government official, Financial Secretary John Tsang saw nothing and heard nothing. He had no curiosity to find out either. He was too busy doodling with his pen.


#022. John Tsang's Facebook

John Tsang said that he attended a dinner. Sitting next to him is Liberal Party ex-chairman James Tien, who is an elector. The dinner offering included white wine.

CAP 554 Elections (Corruption and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance: Section 12 Corrupt conduct to provide others with refreshment and entertainment at election

(1) A person engages in corrupt conduct at an election if the person provides, or meets all or part of the cost of providing, food, drink or entertainment for another person for the purpose of inducing the other person or a third person—

(a) to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates; or

(b) not to vote at the election, or not to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates.

(3) A person engages in corrupt conduct at an election if the person solicits, accepts or takes food, drink or entertainment—

(a) as an inducement to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates; or

(b) as an inducement not to vote at the election, or not to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates.

- Post facto, the John Tsang election campaign team said that each guest paid $500 out of their pockets to attend this dinner.

#023. Wan Chin's Facebook

Is John Tsang's public relations so great? He merely treated the people of Hong Kong as dogs. They receive it very well, and they responded to John Tsang just as dogs would.

Dogs don't understand human language. Therefore you can't use words to communicate with dogs. You can't attempt to use subtle points of debate to persuade dogs. Instead, you have to smile, shake hands, slap shoulders, stroke backs, comb hair and otherwise communicate in an affectionate manner as opposed to informative.

As for dogs, they don't mind when John Tsang use human language to say that he supports Basic Law Article 23 legislation or he accepts the August 31st framework. They don't understand human language anyway. They merely felt that this person watched the Hong Kong team soccer games on his ipad, took any number of selfies at the starting line of the Hong Kong marathon, ran into Chow Yun-fat "by accident" at the tofu store ... that is more than enough already. Pan-democratic supporters really like John Tsang, because they think that they are dogs and they want the dog owner to shower tender loving care on them.

- So that explains why John Tsang's policy platform has an item for setting up an Animal Police to crack down on unlicensed for-profit pet breeding farms. At the time, Internet users were moved because no previous Chief Executive in the history of Hong Kong had ever shown any interest in animal rights.

(SCMP) March 5, 2017.

Pan-democrats vowed on Saturday to give all 326 votes to John Tsang Chun-wah, the “most popular” candidate, in Hong Kong’s leadership race, on March 26. Dennis Kwok, a pan-democratic lawmaker who co-ordinated the electors from his camp, said: “ We decided to unanimously vote for the most popular candidate in order to avoid someone continuing the style of Leung Chun-ying.” But even if all 326 pan-dem members of the 1,194-strong Election Committee opt for the former financial secretary, he still faces an uphill battle to secure the minimum 601 votes needed to become the next chief executive.

Internet comments:

- (HKG Pao)  March 5, 2017. Information Technology sub-sector elector Chan Chak-to posted on Facebook:

Democracy 300+: We will vote en bloc
Democracy 300+: Voting will be by secret ballots, the pro-establishment electors will switch their votes
#Insanity

Chan added: "If we had said that we will vote en bloc right from the beginning, there would not be a Democracy 300+ to speak of. If we had said that we would be following public opinion polls, we would be cursed out so much that our mothers can't even recognize us. Actually, we are intelligent beings who are not being offered too many choices here. So we are going to vote more or less the same way. So why must we insist on a false 'unity', thus disrespecting our own free will?"

- Why are they called 'Democracy 300+'? There is nothing democratic about what they are doing. Since when is coercing people to vote en bloc 'democratic'?

- Psst. Don't believe a word that they say. Here is the banner for The Professionals Guild (whose members include legislators Ip Kin-yuen, Lee Kwok-lun, Leung Kai-cheung, Dennis Kwok, Charles Mok, Siu Ka-chun and Yiu Chung-yim): "Oppose the manipulation of the Chief Executive election."

- There would be truth in advertising if they changed the slogan to "Oppose the manipulation of the Chief Executive election by persons other than ourselves."

- Why are they called 'Democracy 300+'? There is nothing democratic about what they are doing. Since when is coercing people to vote en bloc 'democratic'?

- Let us be clear on something: Dennis Kwok was not referring to any public opinion poll results, such as any coming from the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme, Lingnan University Public Governance Programme or the Chinese University of Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies. He is referring to the "CE Election Civil Referendum 2017" organized by Citizens United in Action.

- At the Civil Nomination phase, the CE Election Civil Referendum 2017 results were distinctly different from public opinion poll results. Whereas the public opinion polls reached out to the general population, the CE Election Civil Referendum 2017 were loaded with supporters. Thus, John Tsang received a super-majority of the votes.

- (The Stand News) The CE Election Civil Referendum 2017 will be held March 10-19. Voters will have to use Telegram to vote. Each voter will have to provide a Hong Kong ID number and a mobile telephone number to receive text messages. Benny Tai said that they will explain to the Privacy Commissioner on Personal Data about the usage/security.

Well, Benny, why do you need to know my Telegram logon, my Hong Kong ID, my mobile telephone number and how I voted? Are you sure that you don't need my credit card numbers and bank accounts as well?

- (The Stand News) Benny Tai said that he hopes that one million citizens will vote.

During the nomination phase, the Privacy Commissioner on Personal Data raised certain concerns and the system was offline for a while. In the end, there were only 19,075 nominations, of which John Tsang got 48%, Woo Kwok-hing got 13% and Carrie Lam got 0.8%. Yes, that's right, Carrie Lam got 0.8% of the nominations.

How likely are they to reach one million in the voting stage? Whatever the number is, are they suppose to represent the entire population (either the 3.8 million registered voters or the 6 million total adults)?

- Do you think that Carrie Lam is supported by only 0.8% of the population in Hong Kong? If there are 3.8 million registered voters in Hong Kong, 0.8% is 30,400. There were 40,000 policemen at the police union meeting. Are they likely to vote for John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing?

- (The Stand News) The poll question is not: "Which of these candidates do you vote for?" Instead, the respondent is asked whether they support/oppose each candidate. The results will be a net approval rate for each candidate.

Example:

Candidate A: 50% support, 30% oppose, 20% no opinion, net approval +20%
Candidate B: 40% support, 10% oppose, 50% no opinion, net approval +30%
Candidate C: 20% support, 70% oppose, 10% no opinion, net approval -50%

If the criterion is the candidate with the highest support level, then it is Candidate A.
If the criterion is the candidate with the highest net approval rate, then it is Candidate B.
That is to say, there are still ways of moving the goalposts around to end up with Dennis Kwok's choice (namely, John Tsang).

- Hey, if Carrie Lam comes first in the public opinion polls, are Democracy 300+ going to be 'all-in' for her? When that time comes, will they shift the goal posts again?

- (HKG Pao) Dennis Kwok was asked this question directly by a radio host. He did not provide a direct answer. Instead, he said that the CE Election Civil Referendum 2017 website can be attacked by hackers who alter the outcome. So the only way that Carrie Lam can lead is by hacking, in which case the outcome should be ignored. Kwok said that he trusts in the wisdom of the people of Hong Kong. So if you are smart, you vote for John Tsang; if you are stupid, you vote for Carrie Lam/Woo Kwok Hing.

Dennis Kwok said that Democracy 300+ will pay attention to policy platforms and trustworthiness in addition to popular support. This means that if Carrie Lam is most popular, they will say that she cannot be trusted and/or her policy platform is execrable.


Dennis Kwok is player/coach/referee/groundskeeper. He can move the goal posts anywhere he wants. You job is to sit and applaud the result that he rigged.

- Five years ago, the public opinion polls ranked CY Leung as most popular, ahead of Henry Tang. Both Leung and Tang were far ahead of Albert Ho. The pan-democrats showed no respect for public opinion and cast their votes for their man Albert Ho.

- Why are they called 'Democracy 300+'? There is nothing democratic about what they are doing. Since when is coercing people to vote en bloc 'democratic'?

- John Tsang told Sing Tao: "I am definitely in the pro-establishment camp."

Good! Democracy 300+ votes for a pro-establishment candidate. Hong Kong has gone RED completely.

- In 2014, the pan-democrats said "I want genuine universal suffrage."
In 2017, the pan-democrats say "I want John Tsang."

- (Bastille Post) Four of the Democracy 300+ groups -- Defend Hong Kong Freedom Alliance, Maintain Hong Kong, Voters Rise Up and 617 Civic Accord have decided that they will not participate in the PopVote phase. According to 617 Civic Accord spokesperson Hon Lin-shan, the Civil Referendum project contained two phases -- nomination and civil referendum. The nomination phase had been clumsy to the point where nobody received the 37,800 votes for nomination. The Civil Referendum will now take place with three candidates. The most likely beneficiary of PopVote is John Tsang. Given that John Tsang wants to enact Basic Law Article 23 legislation and he will not abandon the August 31st framework for constitutional reform, his election would be a huge step backwards for democracy. This outcome is not acceptable to progressive democrats. Therefore these groups are breaking up with John Tsang as well as PopVote.

(EJ Insight) A lose-lose for HK whoever wins the chief executive election. By Michael Chugani. March 3, 2017.

When Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor declared her intention to run as chief executive, it became clear the election race would be between her and John Tsang Chun-wah. Lam and Tsang quit as the government’s second and third-highest officials – chief secretary and financial secretary – to compete for Hong Kong’s top job, making it the most competitive and sensitive chief executive election in post-handover Hong Kong. Legislative councilor Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee and former judge Woo Kwok-Hing were never serious threats to the top two candidates even though Woo has received enough nominations to compete.

The million-dollar question now is not who will win but who Beijing wants to win. If persistent reports are to be believed, Lam is the chosen one because Beijing doesn’t trust Tsang. But Tsang has chosen not to believe such reports, at least outwardly. He told me in a TV interview it was pure speculation senior mainland leader Zhang Dejiang had told Hong Kong business leaders in Shenzhen that Beijing preferred Lam.

The Shenzhen meeting was so widely reported and privately confirmed by so many of those who attended that it is puzzling why Tsang dismisses it as speculation. Either he knows something we all don’t about Beijing’s preference or he believes the reports but concluded it would be election suicide if he openly acknowledges Beijing opposes his candidacy.

Has Tsang been privately told that Lam is not necessarily the only chosen one and that Beijing would accept him if he wins the small-circle election of 1,194 voters who will vote in a secret ballot on March 26?

Anything is possible, given the closed-door nature of politics within the top echelons of power in Beijing. Indeed, there are those who believe Lam is the chosen one only within one faction and not necessarily the only choice of top leader Xi Jinping. I don’t understand China politics well enough to hazard a guess one way or another. But Tsang has certainly adopted a campaign mode that gives the clear impression he is running to win, not to lose.

All public opinion polls so far show he is the most popular, with Lam slowly narrowing the gap. The trouble is there have been too many signals, direct and indirect, Beijing doesn’t trust him to be chief executive even though it had trusted him as financial secretary for nine years. Reasons for this mistrust range from Tsang having spent much of his early life in the US to having been former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten’s right-hand man leading up to the handover.

No senior mainland official has spoken openly of this supposed mistrust. They have only done so in nuanced ways. But the speculation is so widespread that it has become fact in the public mind. Tsang himself has refused to give a straight answer every time he is asked if he has privately received a red light from Beijing. This reluctance to come clean suggests there must be some truth to the speculation that Beijing had strongly discouraged him from running as chief executive ...

(SCMP) March 5, 2017.

With three weeks to go before the chief executive election, the state leader who oversees Hong Kong affairs has emphasised Beijing enjoys a “substantive and constitutional” power to appoint the city’s leader.

During a meeting with delegates from Hong Kong and Macau to the nation’s top advisory body in Beijing on Saturday, National People’s Congress chairman Zhang Dejiang listed Beijing’s four criteria for the next chief executive: he or she must “love the country and love Hong Kong”, be trusted by Beijing, be capable of governing, and be supported by the Hong Kong people.

Zhang, the Communist Party’s third-ranking leader, was quoted by Hong Kong delegates as saying that he hoped to see an “honourable fight” in the run-up to the race. He stopped short of naming candidates or confirming whether front runner Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was the central government’s preferred choice.

But according to a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference standing committee, Chan Wing-kee, the state leader said: “Beijing’s standards for the chief executive are much higher. It is not like the requirements for a head of policy bureau. Zhang said the chief executive has an important status.”

Chan said that during the meeting, Zhang gave a 20-minute speech on his latest take on Hong Kong issues. “Zhang said the central government’s power to appoint the chief executive is not a ‘rubber stamp’, but substantive,” Chan said. “He is confident that a chief executive, who fits Beijing’s standards, would be elected … and the standards are ‘love the country and love Hong Kong’, trusted by Beijing, capable of governing and supported by Hong Kong people.”

(Bastille Post) March 4, 2017.

Zhang Dejiang said that the Central Government's power to appoint the Chief Executive is substantive, because it affects the implementation of One Country Two Systems. The Central Government demands on the Chief Executive are based upon constitutional requirements, which makes it different for other principal officials. The next Chief Executive must be able and willing to take on the responsibility of the post and handle complex situations.

When Zhang Dejiang said that the Central Government has substantive powers of appointment, it is a clear statement that the Central Government may refuse to appoint an elected person who they consider unsuitable. As for the ability and willingness to take on the responsibility, this is a subtle hint of support to Carrie Lam.

- What is the ability and willingness to take on the responsibility an issue?

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 3, 2017.

Chief executive candidate John Tsang has said he resigned as financial secretary two months ago not because of the leadership race, but because he was unhappy in his job. He told Sing Tao Daily in an interview published on Friday that he had yet to make up his mind on running when he quit, but one of the reasons for the departure was an accumulation of discontent. He did not go into the details about what incident pushed him over the edge.

- (Sing Tao Daily) March 3, 2017.

After entering the Chief Executive election, there have been rumors that the Central Government does not support him, to the point of not appointing him even if he is elected. Tsang said that he has heard these rumors, "but I do not see any reason why the Central Government does not trust me." He said: "I have been a principal government official since 1999. I may just be the longest serving principal government official." "The Central Government should know me well."

On February 23, China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming hosted the retiring members of the Hong Kong delegation to the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. He clarified that there is no "theory of two Centrals." He said that there is only one Central, which is united together under chairman Xi Jinping. All talks about two Centrals are false rumors.

Zhang Xiaoming said that that the Chief Executive is appointed by the Central Government. The requirements are normal. Since the Chief Executive is responsible to the Central Government, it is necessary to have a capable person. The Central Government has the responsibility to state this requirement. "The Central Government is not a rubber stamp. It has a substantive duty. Let us discuss the issues."

Zhang Xiaoming discussed the Chief Executive candidates. He praised Carrie Lam as being capable and responsible to lead Hong Kong and she is also trusted by the Central Government. Without naming names, he said that a certain candidate proposed to "recover/recuperate/rehabilitate" and also wanting to deal with the constitutional reform and Basic Law Article 23 legislation at the same time. This candidate has also amended his policy platform afterwards in order to appease certain persons or groups. Clearly, Zhang Xiaoming was referring to John Tsang.

Zhang Dejiang is saying exactly the same thing as Zhang Xiaoming. When Zhang Dejiang said, "The Chief Executive must be able and willing to take on the responsibility," he is supporting Carrie Lam.

(EJ Insight) Why Woo Kwok-hing is the real deal in the CE election. By Wong On-yin. March 8, 2017.

I wasn’t surprised at all that retired judge Woo Kwok-hing was able to get enough endorsement votes from the Election Committee to become an official CE election candidate.

However, what really surprised me though was the fact that Woo was able to officially join the race almost effortlessly by securing the backing of 179 pro-democracy members on the Election Committee, without any assistance from Beijing.

At a recent meeting with the Hong Kong delegation to the National People’s Congress in Beijing, Zhang Dejiang, chairman of the NPC Standing Committee (NPCSC), said all three of the CE contenders are able to meet the four major requirements for becoming Hong Kong’s next leader.

However, Zhang just ended right there, and didn’t go on to publicly root for Carrie Lam as many among both the pro-democracy and pro-establishment camps had expected, an almost unmistakable indication that Lam remains far from being able to seal her victory.

As a matter of fact, like I have repeated over and over again, retired judge Woo is the real deal and is likely to emerge as the dark horse in the upcoming CE election. The fact that Zhang had refrained from publicly endorsing Lam only proves my point.

Woo might not be able to seal his victory in the first round of voting on March 26, but I am pretty sure he is likely to win at the second round, as long as he doesn’t make any silly mistake or get carried away and put his foot in his mouth between now and the election day.

I am perhaps the only political commentator in Hong Kong that has repeatedly suggested since last December that Woo is the real deal, and stood by my conviction all along. However, the campaign team of John Tsang and the pan-democrats both seem to only believe in what they want to believe, and refuse to take Woo seriously.

In my opinion, Tsang’s under-estimation of, or even disdain for, Woo would prove his undoing on March 26.

My confidence in Woo is by no means unfounded. Let me explain that in detail.

There is a prevailing notion among the pan-democrats that Lam secured at least 700 endorsement votes from the pro-Beijing camp, and the reason why she only presented 579 votes when officially registering as candidate last week was because she wanted to keep a low profile and hide her strength so as not to alert Tsang and Woo too much.

The truth, I believe, is that the pan-democrats have got it all wrong. Lam had indeed been desperate to seek the endorsement of an extra 200 pro-establishment members even until the last minute during the nomination period in order to make her election prospects more reassuring.

However, Beijing had denied her those extra votes, and only gave her 579 endorsement votes, still 22 short of the threshold of getting elected. And the reason why Beijing refused to give her that reassurance she badly needed is a hint that the central leadership is yet to make a final decision. And that Beijing needs to reserve some votes to back up Woo, just in case.

Yet it turns out Woo didn’t even need Beijing’s behind-the-scene maneuver to secure his candidacy.

In fact Beijing is adjusting its policy on Hong Kong, under which it is going to ease off politically and the carrot would replace the stick, at least for quite a while.

Just look at how Premier Li Keqiang softened his tone over the growing separatism in Hong Kong when he addressed the NPC delegates, and you can tell that Beijing doesn’t want to further provoke the people of Hong Kong.

It is because Beijing is well aware that the continued polarization and escalating confrontation in our city would only cause irreversible damage to our social stability and the rule of law, and above all, undermine the confidence of international investors in “One Country Two Systems”.

If global investors lose their confidence in “One Country Two Systems”, Hong Kong will no longer be able to fulfill its role as China’s window to the world and serve Beijing’s strategic and economic purposes.

That is why Beijing may put Woo in charge of Hong Kong, for what is a better way to restore international confidence in our rule of law than appointing a former judge as the next CE?

Once elected, I am confident that Woo will deliver his “3 visions” for our city. First, he is going to put an end to the confrontational style of governance adopted by the incumbent Leung administration, and allow disqualified lawmakers to run in by-elections as long as they stop advocating Hong Kong independence.

Second, he will deliver on his election promises by enacting article 22 of the Basic Law to uphold “One Country Two Systems” and relaunch political reform consultation. And lastly, he will seek to improve social welfare and address the issue of housing shortages for young people.

Internet comments:


#Irresponsible
John Tsang resigned because he was unhappy with his work.
If he becomes Chief Executive and he is unhappy with his work, will he quit again!?

- If John Tsang was unhappy being the Financial Secretary, he will be even unhappier being the Chief Executive. How can anyone want to show up at the office knowing that Leung Kwok-hung, Chan Chi-chuen, Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai, Chu Hoi Dick, and others will criticize everything that you do because they are your structurally implacable foes?

- John Tsang said during a Commercial Radio interview that the Chief Executive is a lousy job.

- Well, it is a lousy job if you are serious about it. But if you intend to muddle through it (='hea' in Cantonese), then it is easy. For example, here is John Tsang answering a question about the Lancôme/Denise Ho affair in June 2014 -- "Let me find out more. I don't know much about it." As the saying goes, you cannot wake someone up if they are bent on pretending to be asleep.

- John Tsang served as Financial Secretary when CY Leung began his five-year term as Chief Executive. Four years and nine months later, John Tsang decided that he was unhappy with his job. So he quit right before the government budget was due. What do you suppose CY Leung and the Central Government think of him? Should they give him a job promotion? Why would the Central Government wait for 30 days before approving his resignation except to show their displeasure?

- John Tsang looked out for number one. He did not give a flying fuck about his boss CY Leung, or the other members of the team, or Hong Kong, or China.

- Ayn Rand: The Virtue of Selfishness. It is commonly believed that morality demands we choose between sacrificing other people to ourselves (which is deemed “selfish” and therefore immoral) and sacrificing our own values to satisfy others’ needs (which is deemed unselfish and therefore moral). In this book, Rand rejects both options as forms of selflessness, and offers a new concept of egoism — an ethics of rational selfishness that rejects sacrifice in all its forms. Selfishness, however, does not mean “doing whatever you please.” Moral principles are not a matter of personal opinion — they are based in the facts of reality, in man’s nature as a rational being, who must think and act successfully in order to live and be happy. Morality’s task is to identify the kinds of action that in fact benefit oneself. These virtues (productivity, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, pride) are all applications of the basic virtue, rationality. Rand’s moral ideal is a life of reason, purpose and self-esteem.

In other words, John Tsang may seem to be selfish but he has rationalized to himself that his actions were for the sake of freedom, democracy, justice, human rights, rule of law and universal core values. Therefore he is virtuously selfish.

- If John Tsang was unhappy about what was happening on the job, he should say what it was and incorporate it into his policy platform. For example, perhaps he wanted to be less conservative on spending the budget surplus but he was overruled by CY Leung. He can promise to dole out helicopter money (like $100,000 per Hong Kong resident) if elected, and that should send his public opinion support through the roof. As another example, he may have considered that it was wrong for the Hong Kong Police to fire tear gas on September 28, 2014. He can promise to ban the use of tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannon. But all he does is mumble his way through with platitudes.

(Ming Pao) March 2, 2017.

Columns: Candidates from left to right: Carrie Lam, John Tsang, Regina Ip, Leung Kwok-hung, Woo Kwok-hing, Total
Rows: Newspapers from to to bottom: Apple Daily, Ming Pao, Ta Kung Pao, Wen Wei Po; Sing Pao, Sing Tao, Hong Kong Economic Journal, am730, Hong Kong Commercial Daily, Headline Daily, Metro Daily, Economic Times, Oriental Daily, Sky Post, Total
Cells: Total number of news articles/commentaries; in the brackets, classified into (positive, neutral and negative)

For example, there were 61 articles/commentaries in Apple Daily on Carrie Lam, of which 1 was positive, 49 were neutral and 11 were negative.

As another example, there were 30 articles/commentaries in Apple Daily on John Tsang, of which 5 were positive, 21 were neutral and 4 were negative.

The data were gathered from consulting the WiseNews database of articles/commentaries in Hong Kong newspapers with the names of the likely candidates for Chief Executive. Based upon the article title, it was classified as positive, neutral or negative.

(Next Weekly) By Tsang Sing-ming.

Recently I went with some volunteer workers to visit the Datong Junior High School in northern Thailand. We were there to implement five projects, such as providing clean water, etc. We happened to encounter the Hong Kong University Science Outreach team of volunteer teachers. It was a nice thing to meet compatriots in a faraway place, but they seemed pretty cool and hardly responded to us.

As elite students, they obviously won't stay at the school dormitory. They take their three meals outside of the school, which meant that they had no chance to interact with the students. When the school tried to arrange some additional events with them, the declined. The principal offered to arrange them to visit the famous Chinese village of Mae Salong in northern Thailand, they refused because they preferred to visit other scenic sites in Chiang Rai. Well, until you have visited Mae Salong, you have not been to northern Thailand!

On the night before their return, the school arranged a farewell party in the evening. The teachers and students arranged a program of dances and songs. The school children waited in the cool, damp evening from 6pm. The Hong Kong university students showed up at 920pm, without a word of apology. The historical reputation of the Hong Kong university students from past visits was destroyed in a single evening.

On the airplane to Chiang Rai, these students talked loudly in the cabin, they tossed their garbage and ignored the instruction to put on their seatbelts during turbulence. Compared to the friendly visiting teams of the past, they were vastly different. It was unclear whether they really came here to be volunteer teachers, or they came to have fund and joy. In any case, they have lost face for all the people in Hong Kong.

(iMOney) February 18, 2017.

Tsang Sing-ming recently retired as the TVB corporate communications vice-president. For more than two decades, he has spent his spare time working as a volunteer in northern Thailand to build and mainland schools for the children of the Chinese soldiers who were left behind there.

Tsang said that students from various universities (such as Chinese University of Hong Kong, Polytechnic University, Shue Yan University) have visited northern Thailand before. Generally, they are better prepared and more enthusiastic than other students from Singapore, Taiwan and mainland China. However, the recent HKU Science Outreach Team has astonished him.

"I wrote about what happened not to condemn this group of HKU students. I wanted to give the facts so that future university students will have better attitudes. This team was the worst among Hong Kong university students. I would not believe it if I did not personally witness what they did."

(Hong Kong University Science Outreach Team Facebook)

Hong Kong University Science Outreach Team

With respect to the recent report about our volunteer teaching mission to northern Thailand in January, we have seriously reviewed what happened and we accept that there were a number of things that we did not handle properly. This has caused the school and the students to feel bad. We thank Mr. Tsang for reminding us, and we want to apologize to the school and other volunteers for all the inappropriate things that happened.

On the evening farewell party, we were late because we mis-estimated our sightseeing time schedule, and caused the school, the students and Mr. Tsang's group to wait for us. We did not apologize them to them immediately. In addition, we were loud and noisy on the airplane due to our excitement and thus annoyed other passengers. That was wrong too. We apologize to all those who were affected.

...

(Ming Pao) March 1, 2017.

Tsang Sing-ming's essay was broadly circulated on the Internet and received social attention. This has led the HKU Science Outreach Team to reflect on their shortcomings. Students Leung and Ho were interviewed by us. They said that after reading Tsang's essay, they suddenly realized "that this was a big deal in the world of adults." They reflected and realized that they were not sloppy and created many misunderstandings.

Leung said that they were 1-1/2 hours late for the evening party. They apologized to the school principal, but they did not apologize to all those present. That was a failure. After they returned to Hong Kong, they called the school principal by telephone and apologized again.

Leung explained that on that last day, their activities were arranged by local Thai friends. Before they set off, they did not confirm the time of the evening party with the school principal. They miscalculated the travel time and created the huge mistake.

After reading Tsang Sing-ming's essay, they immediately got together with some of the members and they also consulted their family members. "Right now, we must first consider how to remedy the situation. Adults will have come across such situations in their work. Perhaps they will know how to deal with this."

After Tsang Sing-ming's essay appeared, Internet users went to the team's Facebook to demand an explanation. Leung said: "That was an unforgettable suddenly breaking event."

The students wrote an apology of more than 1,000 words to Tsang Sing-ming and the school principal. "After it sank in, we know that our approach to dealing with things is different from the adults. We are using this opportunity to take in the experience." They did not regard this as a "bitter and painful experience." Instead, they regard this valuable lesson as something that they will help them to act more maturely when they step into society. Leung said: "Many young people are wrong or inattentive ni how they deal with things. The important thing is to recognize one's mistakes and make remedies afterwards." They said that they hope that society will give them a chance to correct themselves.

Tsang Ming-sing said that he was comforted to receive the letter of apology. Although he said that young people in Hong Kong are relatively egotistical and "rarely concerned with what other people feel," it was helpful that these HKU students were ready to admit their mistakes and accept responsibility.

Internet comments:

- These Hong Kong University students must be suffering from leftist retardism. Of all places, why do they want to visit northern Thailand? When those school children grow up, they are not going to be scientists. They are going to grow opium just like their parents and grandparents did.

- The Hong Kong University students paid for their own airfares, meals and accommodations. They are not receiving academic credits for their work. They haven't complained about the negative publicity that they are receiving as a result of their unpaid volunteer work to teach science to a bunch of opium farmers. So please stop all the criticisms of them.

- It took many more hours for the HKU students to fly from Hong Kong to Bangkok to Chiang Rai to wherever the school is. So why are those junior high school students complaining waiting for three hours? They are just so selfish, egotistical and self-centered. They are completely oblivious to what other people think and feel. That is why there is no future to Thailand.

- This is unreal, because how can HKU students not know the importance of being on time. You don't see them late for 90 minutes for their DSE exam, do you? As soon as the time arrives, they bar the gates into the exam halls!

- Waiting in the cool evening for three hours? It isn't as if they were standing naked out in the cold. They can wear coats, can't they? Or are they really that stupid?

- Tsang Ming-sing is lying like a dog. He said that (1) the school children waited in the cold wind for 3 hours and (2) the HKU Science Outreach team was 90 minutes late. I read back and found out that the students began to prepare at 6pm for the event that was due to start at 8pm, but the HKU team showed up at 920pm. So the correct fact is that the HKU team was only 80 minutes late.

- Tsang Ming-sing was a TVB corporate communications vice-president. That makes him a pro-establishment Blue Ribbon traitor to the Hong Kong Nation. The sole purpose of his essay was to discredit the students of Hong Kong University as unfit for leadership in Hong Kong, being inexperienced and hapless in "adult society." But we know that is false, because HKU student leaders such as Alex Chow, Yvonne Leung, Edward Leung, Billy Fung and Althea Suen have led us closer to Hong Kong independence. They should been leading the Hong Kong Nation, not the old farts such as Arthur Li or westerner quislings such as Peter Mathieson.

What kind of legal defense can $5,000,000 buy? Here are the lawyers who are getting paid the big bucks to defend the "DQ4" legislators:-


Martin Lee SC for Leung Kwok-hung
Audrey Eu SC Yuk-mei for Edward Yao Chung-yim
Johannes Chan SC for Lau Siu-lai
Philip Dykes SC for Nathan Law Kwun-chung

(SCMP) March 1, 2017.

The government on Wednesday asked a court to disqualify four lawmakers for embedding political messages into oaths that were read in a theatrical manner, thus undermining the solemnity of the occasion when they should have been pledging allegiance to Hong Kong.

The four are veteran activist “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, former Occupy Central student leader Nathan Law Kwun-chung, lecturer Lau Siu-lai and university professor Edward Yiu Chung-yim. At issue is the oath they took at the Legislative Council meeting on October 12, 2016, when all the lawmakers were sworn in.

The government is asking the court to declare their oaths invalid and their Legco seats vacant in a legal challenge that combines judicial review with miscellaneous proceedings.

Johnny Mok Shiu-luen SC, for Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, said all four lawmakers’ oaths fell short of three legal requirements: solemnity, sincerity and non-departure from the form and substance of the prescribed oath.

For instance, he noted, Lau’s oath “became 90-odd linguistic units devoid of any coherence” when she read each word at six-second intervals. “Therefore the meaning of what she was doing became a matter of speculation or guesswork to the audience,” he said. And because Lau’s oath was “so abnormal and obviously deliberate”, Mok said, she was using her manner to “send a message over and above her oath”.

In another example, the lawyer said, Leung Kwok-hung turned his oath into a “theatrical performance” and undermined the solemnity of oath taking by holding a yellow umbrella in one hand and a paper board reading “831” with a red cross in the other, which he later tore up.

Mok stressed that while the lawmakers might argue that they were exercising their freedom of speech and expression, the oath-taking ceremony was not the time to do so. “This is the occasion for one and only one purpose, to swear allegiance to the HKSAR,” he told the High Court. The lawmakers had other opportunities to make their views known, he said, asking: “Why did they choose this particular time?” The only answer, Mok said, was to make use of the additions and conduct of delivery to undermine the words in the prescribed oath and its solemnity.

He stressed that the oath was not “mere formality or empty form of words”, but a “genuine, solemn and sincere declaration” to pledge allegiance. “If the oath taker adds words, he offends Article 104 [of the Basic Law], and his oath is unlawful and of no effect,” he continued. “It matters not what the message was ... The point is none of this message is permitted by the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance.”

Mok also noted that all lawmakers were aware of the “clear and unambiguous” requirements prescribed by law. “If the judge is not permitted to do this, if the chief executive is not permitted to do this, if the principal officials are not permitted to do this, why are only Legislative Council members entitled to do this?” Mok asked. “It’s absurd to suggest this entitlement.” Yet the lawmakers “deliberately took risks in order to express certain views” he said, performing actions “which at the end of the day could be found to have crossed the line and invalidated their seats”.

But Mok clarified there were also permissible things to say during the ceremony, such as statements that did not carry any objective effect of sending a message. “It’s not our case that they cannot say anything before or after reading the prescribed oath,” Mok said. One example he gave was: “Can I go back to my seat now?”

The three-day hearing before Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung followed the successful disqualification of pro-independence Youngspiration lawmakers Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching over their oaths.

About 30 people came in support of the lawmakers, including Demosisto founder Joshua Wong Chi-fung and lawmakers Tanya Chan, Leung Yiu-chung, Raymond Chan Chi-chuen and Ted Hui Chi-fung. “Safeguard the Legislative Council, object to the disqualification of lawmakers,” they chanted outside court.

(SCMP) March 1, 2017.

Government lawyers asked a court on Wednesday to disqualify four pro-democracy legislators for “embedding messages” into oaths that were read in a “theatrical performance” when they were supposed to pledge allegiance to Hong Kong at their swearing-in.

But defence counsel Martin Lee Chu-ming SC countered that the government could only unseat a lawmaker if it proved he or she had refused or neglected to take the oath. “They failed to take the oath as required by law but they didn’t refuse to take the oath,” he told High Court judge Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung. Lee was referring to university professor ­Edward Yiu Chung-yim, former Occupy student leader Nathan Law Kwun-chung, lecturer Lau Siu-lai, and his client, veteran activist “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung.

At issue is whether the court should declare their oaths, taken on October 12 last year, invalid and vacate their seats.

Johnny Mok Shiu-luen SC, for Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung, said Beijing’s interpretation of the Basic Law not only targeted messages of independence and self-determination, but also “overall conduct” during the oath-taking. He said all four lawmakers’ oaths fell short of three legal requirements – solemnity, sincerity and non-departure from the form and substance of the prescribed oath.

Yiu and Law were both accused of adding words to their oaths. What Law said in particular could be objectively understood as claiming his oath-taking was “an involuntary act on his part which does not reflect his true beliefs or state of mind”.

Mok also argued that Lau had embedded a message through her delivery, deliberately reading each word at six-second intervals as her oath “became 90-odd linguistic units devoid of any coherence”. “It matters not what the message was,” Mok continued. “The point is none of these messages are permitted by the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance.”

He accused Leung Kwok-hung of undermining the solemnity of the occasion by chanting slogans, wearing a T-shirt that read “civil disobedience” and turning his oath into a “theatrical performance” – brandishing a yellow umbrella, a symbol of the Occupy movement, and tearing up a copy of the controversial political reform framework decreed by Beijing in 2014.

Mok stressed the swearing-in ceremony was not the time to exercise freedoms of speech and expression, as claimed by the four. “This is the occasion for one and only one purpose, to swear allegiance to the HKSAR,” he said. All lawmakers were aware of the “clear and unambiguous” requirements prescribed by law, he continued, but the four “deliberately took risks in order to express certain views”. “If the judge is not permitted to do this, if the chief executive is not permitted to do this, if the principal officials are not permitted to do this, why are only Legislative Council members entitled to do this? It’s absurd to suggest this entitlement.”

But Lee, who admitted that he personally did not approve of such conduct in the legislature, argued that the only standard guiding legislative conduct – the Rules of Procedure – did not stipulate how the oaths should be taken.

Lawmakers were also not forewarned of the consequences of improper oath-taking when his client alone had pulled similar stunts in the past four councils. “Nobody could have imagined what was thought to be permissible would turn out wrong and cause them to lose their seats,” Lee said.

(SCMP) March 2, 2017.

Hong Kong courts have no power to disqualify lawmakers for making improper oaths unless the relevant laws are amended to accommodate Beijing’s interpretation of the Basic Law, a court heard on Thursday.

The argument emerged in the government’s challenge to unseat four pro-democracy lawmakers as defence counsel Martin Lee Chu-ming SC said the requirement for a solemn and sincere swearing-in emerged only after the interpretation of the city’s mini-constitution last November.

But lawmakers could only be disqualified on such grounds if they were stipulated in the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, he said.

Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun SC further warned it would be dangerous to take the interpretation as a context in considering the present case as that would create a “back door” to admit statements made by a foreign body into the Hong Kong system.

“The fundamental principle of ‘one country, two systems’ is the laws of two systems are clearly separated,” he told High Court judge Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung.

The case centres on oaths taken in the Legislative Council by university professor Edward Yiu Chung-yim, former Occupy student leader Nathan Law Kwun-chung, lecturer Lau Siu-lai, and veteran activist “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung on October 12 last year.

The High Court earlier disqualified pro-independence pair Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, of the group Youngspiration, as they had “declined” to take their oaths by pledging allegiance to the “Hong Kong nation” and insulting China at their swearing-in ceremony.

The government now accused the four of refusing to take their oaths by intentionally failing to swear solemnly and sincerely, and of altering the form and substance of the prescribed oaths by adding political messages and staging “theatrical performances”.

But Chan, representing Lau, said their conduct could not be considered as a refusal when there were no formal requirements on the manner of oath-taking in the first place.

“At the end of the day we are dealing with questions of whether the conduct has departed from acceptable norms of behaviour,” he said.

Factors to be considered include Legco’s practice and background as the most political institution in Hong Kong, and due weight should be given to rulings made by the Legco president and clerk, who are most familiar with the institution’s traditions and values, to accept their oaths as valid.

Chan argued that oaths had historically carried a political role and its solemnity should not preclude the conveying of other messages when they did not contaminate the oath that followed.

He also noted that elections could lose their meaning if candidates returned by the people could be removed in the absence of “clear and unambiguous criteria” on what constituted a refusal to be sworn in, which he said was an “extremely serious penalty”.

Philip Dykes SC, defending Law, further pointed out that other lawmakers, such as Raymond Chan Chi-chuen and Helena Wong Pik-wan had similarly added words at the time without having to face the court.

He questioned if there was an “abuse of process” on the government’s part to instigate the challenge for political causes when there was “no good reason” why the four had acted so significantly different from others that it amounted to a refusal to take the oath.

With “the government attacking” individual lawmakers while the president was absent from court to defend Legco procedures, Lee said the judiciary played an important role.

“You are the only arbiter. You can do justice to both sides,” he told the judge on Leung’s behalf. “The proper way to interpretation is to amend the law.”

Until then, Lee said: “Your lordship simply has no power to disqualify these legislators.”

The hearing continues.

(SCMP) March 3, 2017.

Four pro-democracy lawmakers threatened with disqualification for improper oath-taking urged the High Court on Friday to dismiss the case, claiming an abuse of process arising from selective prosecution.

The unexpected twist came just as the three-day hearing was about to close when lawyers for Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung failed to explain why they had broadened their case.

Philip Dykes SC, defending former Occupy student leader Nathan Law Kwun-chung, noted that the four were accused of refusing to take their oaths in part because they had added to the prescribed wording, while seven other lawmakers had similarly added words on that same day, October 12, but had not been challenged by the government.

He questioned if there was an abuse of process through selective prosecution, motivated by political reasons.

Johnny Mok Shiu-luen SC, for Leung and Yuen, replied that he was not asked to advise on the other cases. But he added: “These four cases are the clearest ones.”

Mok was referring to Nathan Law, university professor Edward Yiu Chung-yim, lecturer Lau Siu-lai and veteran activist “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung.

At issue was whether their actions amounted to a refusal to take their oaths, which would result in their disqualification. Two other lawmakers – Youngspiration’s Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching – have already been disqualified on such grounds.

Asked outside court if they were worried that their application to halt proceedings might affect other lawmakers, Law replied they only meant to challenge a possible procedural injustice.

Occupy movement founder Chan Kin-man, who raised HK$3.5 million for the four through the Justice Defend Fund campaign, said they would try to help other lawmakers if they ended up in court.

The seven lawmakers named are Raymond Chan Chi-chuen, Helena Wong Pik-wan, Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, Lam Cheuk-ting, Shiu Ka-chun, Roy Kwong Chun-yu and Cheng Chung-tai.

The defence has 14 days to submit written applications.

Earlier in the day, Audrey Eu Yuet-mee SC argued that her client, Yiu, thought he was making a valid oath when he added remarks as he had still read all of the original words in his affirmation.

“Why should he deliberately flout the law in order to let down his voters?” she asked.

Eu stressed there was nothing in the regulations that stopped lawmakers from adding words or pledges as long as they did not contradict the prescribed oath.

“The purpose of the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance is to make sure the legislators make those pledges,” she said.

But Mok replied that it was “self-serving” for the defence to argue that oath-taking was a mere formality, and even worse to suggest lawmakers were entitled to distort the oath so long as all the words were recited.

“If the defence position is accepted, the oath-taking members can basically do anything ... with impunity,” he said.

Mok further argued there would be “no limit to the ingenuity” of lawmakers in coming up with novel means to circumvent the straightforward reading of the oath to advocate other things. And he said they would “go to extreme lengths” to do so, like Lau timing herself in preparation before she read her words at six-second intervals. Mok argued that the law must be kept vague and flexible to be moulded into different situations.

But Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun SC, defending Lau, replied: “If one is expected to obey the law, one has to know what the law is.”

Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung reserved judgment.

Internet comments:

- (AFP) March 1, 2017. Defence lawyer Martin Lee — himself a respected democracy campaigner — said there had been unorthodox readings of oaths in the past without disqualifications, and that lawmakers “could not have imagined” that they could lose their seats. “This who case is very political,” he told the court. “You have the government attacking some of the legislators.” Lee argued that the only justification for forcing them out of their seats would be if they had outright refused to take the pledge.

- (Commercial Radio) March 1, 2017. Martin Lee SC pointed out although the NPCSC interpretation gave a clearer explanation of oaths, it came after the four legislators took their oaths. Since 2004, Leung Kwok-hung has taken four oaths of office, and he did so differently each time without getting into trouble. So even if the oaths this time was invalid, it was a failure to complete the oath and not a refusal to take the oath.

- (Oriental Daily) March 2, 2017. Martin Lee SC representing Leung Kwok-hung said that the NPCSC interpretation stipulates sincerity and solemnity as requirements of an oath. However, the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance has not been amended to include these requirements. Since the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance presently requires neither sincerity nor solemnity, these cannot be reasons to strip Legislators of their seats. Until as such time when the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance has been amended, the court should not take action. At the same time,

The counsel for Lau Siu-lai said that while they don't question the principles laid down in the case of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, they wonder how those principles can be applied to this case. The issue is election rights, because the people have elected a Legislative Councilor with the expectation of serving them for four years. Therefore the rights of the voters will be violated if the Legislative Councilor is disqualified. Any action taken must be in accordance with the law, including clear, objective and assessable criteria. There must also be a clear and unambiguous need.

The counsel for Lau Siu-lai said that different Legislative Councilors will have different volumes, different intonations, different speeds, when they take their oaths. Discrepancies do not necessarily mean refusal or negligence. In the absence of specifications, subjective judgments are being made. The Secretary-general of the Legislative Council looked at it in a lenient manner and accepted Lau's oath; the Legislative Council president was more rigorous under pressure from certain Legislative Councilor and gave Lau a chance to re-take her oath; the Chief Executive/Secretary of Justice want the court to take a very rigorous stand.

The counsel for Lau Siu-lai said that the court must not deduce that the Legislative Council was not sincere or solemn in the absence of concrete evidence. Lau Siu-lai had said certain things before and after her oath on October 12, but this does not prove that she was not sincere or solemn.

- (Oriental Daily) March 2, 2017. In the case of Lau Siu-lai had read out every word in the Legislative Council oath of office according to her own solemn manner. The counsel for Lau Siu-lai urged the court to ignore the Apple Daily report about what she said about her oath or what she wrote on her Facebook.

The counsel for Lau Siu-lai said that she had inquired the Legislative Council secretariat about the requirements of the oath and she had viewed the four previous times Leung Kwok-hung took the oath. Based upon these precedents, she determined that pauses are allowed during the oaths. She had also rehearsed different ways of taking her oath. On October 12, Lau took her oath in a serious manner. If she did wrong, then it is because the standards were unclear. The court should not strip her of her seat just because the standards were unclear.

The counsel for Nathan Law said that Legislative Councilors Chu Hoi Dick, Cheng Chung-tai, Lam Cheuk-ting, Kwong Chun-yu and Wong Pik-wan also expressed their political positions during their oaths, but the Chief Executive/Secretary of Justice did not take them to court to disqualify them. The judge asked, "When I consider whether Nathan Law refused to take his oath of not, do I have to consider the fact that the Chief Executive/Secretary of Justice did not prosecute the other Legislative Councilors?" The counsel said that this shows that the Chief Executive/Secretary for Justice are abusing the legal process.

The Counsel said that precedents at the Legislative Council are not necessarily the reason that the oaths of Legislative Council must be accepted. But the Chief Executive/Secretary of Justice still have to prove that the Legislative Councilors refused to take their oaths. Since the oath is merely a ceremony to mind the Legislative Councilors of their duties, the oath begins and ends with the oath itself. The expression of political views either before or after the oath is not part of the oath-taking process.

- (TVB) Senior Counsel (Honorary) Johannes Chan for Lau Siu-lai said that refusal/negligence to take the oath would be when someone makes joking, rude or ridiculous actions and words during the oath. By contrast, Lau Siu-wai looked serious and solemn during her oath. As a newly elected Legislative Councilor, she may have tried to attract media attention. As for her Facebook post afterwards in which she said that read out more than 90 unconnected meaningless words slowly, Chan said that Lau really wanted the public to ponder themselves what those words are supposed to mean. As for her declaration of "democratic self-determination" and "decide our own fates" before her oath began, Chan said that different people have different interpretations and therefore it does not mean that she was unwilling to abide by the Basic Law or her oath of office.

- Eh, at this point, we begin to see why Johannes Chan should not have been appointed pro vice-chancellor at Hong Kong University.

- Johannes Chan's skin must be as thick as that of a dinosaur in order for him to say that Lau Siu-lai's 10-minute oath of office was 'serious and solemn.' He must be kidding!

- If Johannes Chan thinks that Lau's manner of speech was solemn and sincere, do you think that he would speak to the judges today in that manner?

- (Sing Tao) February 2, 2017. Outside the courthouse, Leung Kwok-hung said that even though he is receiving legal aid, he will still have to pay $1.2 million in legal fees. At present, his bank account only has $900,000+, so he may be bankrupt and automatically lose his Legislative Council seat.

- Fuck! The last time he took that $500,000 in unreported donations, he said that he was keeping it for future legal fees. So where is that $500,000 now that he needs it? Did he spend it all on booze?

- Eh, he has $900,000+ in his bank account and he earns $95,180 per month. So how did he manage to get public housing? (Hong Kong Housing Authority) Maximum income limit per month for 1 person family: $10,970. Total net asset limit for 1 person: $242,000.

- And how did he get legal aid? (Legal Aid Department) Monthly disposable income for one-person family: $6,150 (=total monthly income after deducting rents, rates and a statutory allowance for you own living expenses). Disposable capital: $290,380 including cash, bank savings, jewelery, antiques, stock shares and property.

- Leung Kwok-hung needs to pay $1.2 million and he only has $900,000+ right now. Well, he makes $95,180 in salary per month. He is also entitled to claim office operation expenses and entertainment and traveling expenses. So he will have another $200,000 by the end of this month.

- Leung Kwok-hung should have taken the $100 million offered to him to vote for the 2015 constitutional reform bill.

- What is Leung Kwok-hung arguing? Because he will be bankrupt if he loses his job, the court must allow him to keep his job and keep raking in his salary in order to pay off his legal bills.

- Leung Kwok-hung has been Legislative Councilors since 2004 at a monthly salary of about $90,000. Over the 12 year period, he earned more than $12 million. Today he has less than $1 million left. Well, does he have a serious drinking problem or what?

- Eh, no, he spent the $1 million on his judicial review against the Correctional Services Department for sexual discrimination after he was forced to have his hair cut during his incarceration in 2014 (see EJ Insight). That was a huge victory for equal gender rights in the history of Hong Kong. From here on now, all prisoners (men and women) will have their hair cut short.

- A typical response to the claim of an abuse of process arising from selective prosecution is this illustrative example:

CAP 374G Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations s 33 Light Signal Crossing

(1) Light signals may be used for the purpose of indicating to pedestrians the period during which they may or may not cross a carriageway.

(4) The significance of a light signal prescribed by this regulation shall be as follows-

(a) the red signal when illuminated by a steady light shall indicate to a pedestrian that he shall not cross or start to cross the carriageway at the crossing;
(b) the green signal when illuminated by a steady light shall indicate to a pedestrian that he may cross the carriageway at the crossing; and
(c) the green signal when illuminated by an intermittent light shall indicate-

(i) to a pedestrian who is already on the crossing that he shall proceed to pass over the crossing with reasonable speed; and
(ii) to a pedestrian who is not already on the crossing that he shall not start to cross the carriageway at the crossing.

(6) Subject to a direction given by a police officer in uniform or traffic warden in uniform every pedestrian at a light signal crossing shall comply with any indication referred to in subregulation (4)(a) and (c).

CAP 374G Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations s 61 Offenses and Penalties

(2) Any person who without reasonable excuse contravenes any of the provision of, or any requirement under regulation 33(6) commits an offense and is liable to a fine of $2000.

At the pedestrian crossing, there is a red signal. Several dozen persons are waiting to cross. They see that there are no cars coming as far as their eyes can see. So they start walking. On the other side of the street, there is a policeman. He beckons one of the violators over and issues a summons. At court, the defendant makes the claim that this was selective prosecution -- why was he singled out from seven dozen violators?

This case has been cited in many discussions about selective prosecution. The reaction of the magistrate is typically this: "Do not tell me about your long sad story. Here is what I want to know: Did you walk across when the pedestrian light was red? Just answer YES or NO. You say YES? Thank you. Please pay the fine."

The point here is that there are only one policeman and dozens of violators. He can only stop one violator while the rest were allowed to go free. If there were one hundred policemen on the other side, they could stop every violator and fine them all. In the Mong Kok riot trials, a defendant cannot use the fact that he was selected out of hundreds of brick-throwing rioters for prosecution to ask for a permanent discontinuation of his trial.

In the case of the DQ4 legislators, the government has the information (in the form of videos of the oaths of office) on the oaths taken by all seventy Legislative Councilors in 2016, in addition to the historical records of Leung Kwok-hung, Raymond Wong and others in past years. However, the government chose to pursue the cases of these four Legislative Councilors only and not the others who allegedly did similar things. Therein lies the claim of selective prosecution.

The historical cases are not too useful. Here is the frequently cited illustrative example. I have always parked illegally downstairs. Since I live in a relatively remote area with little traffic, the police have never come around to issue parking tickets. But this morning I received a ticket for illegal parking. Is this selective prosecution? Of course not. There were many reasons why I was not ticketed before (e.g. lack of police resources, local priorities, absence of complaints from the public, etc). Just because I hadn't been prosecuted before for my repeated offenses doesn't mean that I can never be prosecuted again.

There are four legislative councilors here. Their cases have different degrees of severity. Ranked from high to low severity among the DQ4, Lau Siu-lai, Nathan Law, Leung Kwok-hung, Yiu Chung-yim. You can check the videos yourself. Yiu Chung-yim may be able to say that his case was similar to what Leung Kwok-hung tried in the past and make a success argument for selective prosecution. But Lau Siu-lai's case is unprecedented in the history of mankind/womankind in the world. One has to admire her counsel Johannes Chan for being able to say without any apparent embarrassment that her oath was both solemn and sincere.

If the government is not allowed to prosecute now, they won't ever be able to prosecute in the future. You know, Common Law, case precedents, blah blah blah. And since this pertains to the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, it will be applicable not just to Legislative Councilors but only to the Chief Executive, principal government officers, judges, court witnesses, etc. Hey, if Lau Siu-lai and Nathan Law can get away with perjury during an oath, so can everybody else. No court/judge would ever want to go down in history as normalizing/regularizing the behavior of Lau Siu-lai. The next witness may speak the same way in court and claim the general privilege derived from Lau Siu-lai's case.

- Lau Siu-lai said that she had consulted the Legislative Council secretariat, obtained and reviewed the videos of the past oaths of office by Leung Kwok-hung and Raymond Wong, developed and rehearsed various alternate scenarios before deciding on her specific performance that day. Then she claims that the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance did not explicitly delineate what is admissible versus inadmissible, so she cannot be held accountable.

Hey, Lau Siu-lai is 40-years-old, has a doctorate and teaches as a university lecturer in sociology. How is it that she does not know the oath protocol that hundreds of millions of people around the world followed without ever being taught or told?

- Like the other Yellow Ribbon rioters, she can always plead mental incompetence.

She looks like the part too ...

- A piece of incriminating evidence against Lau Siu-lai was her subsequent Facebook post in which she explained her action during the oath of office. Johannes Chan SC argued that Facebook posts cannot be used as evidence in court. Ahem ... if true, then why was there ever a crime known as "accessing a computer with criminal or dishonest intent"? According to Johannes Chan, you can post death threats, instructions to build car bombs, kiddie porn, etc on your Facebook and fear no legal consequences because Facebook posts cannot be use as evidence in court. Thanks for clarifying this.

- Lau Siu-lai's case is a qualitative leap from what Leung Kwok-hung did in the past. If Lau gets away with a permanent discontinuation this time, the door will be open for others to outdo her. Here are some proposals:

(1) Turn around, pull down your pants and let off a loud fart.

(2) You begin with "I swear ..." and then you read out the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. Why? Because you were elected to increase the cost of governance (through filibustering, etc) and you might as well as start with the oath of office on day one before any bill is brought up.

- In the case of DQ2 (Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching), US State Department spokesperson Elizabeth Trudeau was trapped between the desire to help two 'pro-democracy' legislators-elect and to defend rule-of-law/independent judiciary. There will be more fun and games when the court reaches a decision on DQ4.

- (US State Department Press Briefing, November 15, 2016)

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you. Legislators-elect who altered the wording of their oaths of office. The United States strongly supports and values Hong Kong’s legislative council and independent judiciary, two institutions that play a critically important role in promoting and protecting the special administrative region’s high degree of autonomy under Basic Law and the “one country, two systems” framework that has been in place since 1997. We believe that an open society with the highest possible degree of autonomy and governed by the rule of law is essential for Hong Kong’s continued stability and prosperity as a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China.

QUESTION: Okay, maybe I missed it. So you think that – you don’t like this action by the court?

MS TRUDEAU: We believe that the Chinese and the Hong Kong SAR government and all elected politicians in Hong Kong should refrain from any actions that fuel concern or undermine confidence in the “one country, two systems” principle.

QUESTION: So does that mean that you – that altering the oath, you’re opposed to, or that the court stripping them of their office is of concern? Which or both?

MS TRUDEAU: Both. We --

QUESTION: So you don’t like the fact that they changed the oath and you don’t like the fact that the court ruled the way it did.

MS TRUDEAU: We believed that – actually, both. So one, it was an independent – the independent legislative council, the independent judiciary, we believe played that important role. But we also call on both the Hong Kong politicians as well as the Chinese Government.

(Ming Pao) February 28, 2017.

Ming Pao commissioned the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme to interview 1,007 adult Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong residents between February 20-24, 2017.

Q1. If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow, how much do you support or oppose this person as Chief Executive (without considering any other candidate as yet)?

John Tsang: 60.0% for, 16.5% against
Carrie Lam: 44.3% for, 36.5% against
Woo Kwok-hing: 33.2% for, 37.9% against
Regina Ip: 22.5% for, 55.7% against

Q2. If you can vote for the Chief Executive tomorrow and these are the four candidates, whom would you vote for?

John Tsang: 39.2%
Carrie Lam: 32.3%
Woo Kwok-hing: 11.9%
Regina Ip: 7.1%

CAP 230A Public Services Regulations: Conduct of conductor and of driver when no conductor is carried.

Section 10(2) A conductor of a bus, when acting as such, and in the case of a bus in which no conductor is carried, a driver-

(a) shall not neglect or refuse to admit and to carry at the lawful fare any passenger or intending passenger who can be accommodated without exceeding the authorized capacity of the bus and to whose admission no reasonable objection is made;
(b) shall permit any passenger to bring with him such goods as may lawfully, safely and conveniently be carried on the bus;
(c) shall not permit any animal, other than a guide dog accompanying a blind person, to be carried on the bus;
(d) may refuse to permit any person who is in a dirty condition to enter in or travel in the bus;
(e) may refuse to permit any person, whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be intoxicated, mentally unbalanced or suffering from an infectious or contagious disease, to enter in or travel in the bus;
(f) may refuse to permit any person, whom he has reasonable cause to believe is carrying goods of a dangerous or offensive nature, to enter in or travel in the bus.

Section 25. Offences and penalties.

(1) Any person who without reasonable excuse contravenes any requirement made under regulation 3(4) or any of the provisions of regulation 3(3)(b), 3(5), 4(2), 5, 6, 7(1), 8, 9, 10(1), 10(2)(a), (b) or (c), 11(a), (b), (c), (e) or (f), 12(a), (b) or (c), 13A(2), 13B, 15, 16, 17 or 18 commits an offence.

(2) Any person who commits an offence under regulation 4(3) or subregulation (1) is liable to a fine of $2,000.

(HK01) February 27, 2017.

A citizen uploaded a video in which a female passenger brought a carriage onto a bus. The carriage is covered up, so that it is impossible to tell what is inside. The video began with the bus conductor telling the woman that pets (apart from guide dogs for visually impaired persons) are not permitted on the bus.

When told, the woman asked: "How do you know that this is not a guide dog?" A passenger asked her to show the dog. The woman said: "No, because it is a Living Buddha."

The woman said that she was not told that dogs are not permitted. A passenger said that she must know because this cannot be her first time. She said: "This is my first time today." She said that she was not told when she got on and she had already paid her fare. The passengers collectively said that they will pay her fare if only she would get off. Even the bus conductor volunteered to pay her fare. But she said that she doesn't need the money.

When asked whether she was being an unreasonable rascal, she said that she is indeed an unreasonable rascal. She told the others to call the police. They asked her why she doesn't call the police herself.

In response to media inquiries, the KMB (Kowloon Motor Bus) Company said that at about 10:05 on February 26, a Route 8A bus arrived at the Tsim Sha Tsui ferry pier when a female passenger brought a baby carriage with a dog onto the bus. The driver tried to stop the female passenger but to no avail. The police were summoned. The police had reason to believe that the woman had mental problems, so an ambulance was summoned to take the woman to the hospital.

Internet comments:

- The big question on the Internet is whether this woman is Yellow Ribbon or Blue Ribbon.

On one hand, the woman is talking about her individual rights while being totally oblivious of the relevant regulations and/or the rights of all other persons. Therefore she has all the essential characteristics of a Yellow Ribbon.

On the other hand, the woman spoke Cantonese with an Ap Lei Chau accent. Therefore she is a Blue Yellow Ribbon.

- This video ended before the police arrived. The whole world wants to know how the police dealt with her.

- But there is a serious issue here. By what right and qualification do the IVE-educated police have to send this woman to the hospital by ambulance for an examination of her mental state? Saying that her dog is a Living Buddha is not enough, nor is giving her name as Karmapa Khyenno.

- And if the woman is taken to the hospital, who is taking care of her dog? Was the SPCA called?

- Please! The dog is a Living Buddha, who does not need humans to look after Him.

- Born In A Time of Chaos Facebook has a video of another raving maniac at the IFC Mall.

Hong Kong Basic Law Article 45

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.

The specific method for selecting the Chief Executive is prescribed in Annex I: "Method for the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region".

Hong Kong Basic Law Annex I

1. The Chief Executive shall be elected by a broadly representative Election Committee in accordance with this Law and appointed by the Central People's Government.

#2. The Election Committee shall be composed of 800 members from the following sectors:

Industrial, commercial and financial sectors 200
The professions 200
Labour, social services, religious and other sectors 200
Members of the Legislative Council, representatives of district-based organizations, Hong Kong deputies to the National People's Congress, and representatives of Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference 200

The term of office of the Election Committee shall be five years.

3. The delimitation of the various sectors, the organizations in each sector eligible to return Election Committee members and the number of such members returned by each of these organizations shall be prescribed by an electoral law enacted by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in accordance with the principles of democracy and openness.

Corporate bodies in various sectors shall, on their own, elect members to the Election Committee, in accordance with the number of seats allocated and the election method as prescribed by the electoral law.

Members of the Election Committee shall vote in their individual capacities.

#4. Candidates for the office of Chief Executive may be nominated jointly by not less than 100 members of the Election Committee. Each member may nominate only one candidate.

Amendment to Annex I to the Basic Law

The Election Committee to elect the fourth term Chief Executive in 2012 shall be composed of 1200 members from the following sectors:

Industrial, commercial and financial sectors 300
The professions 300
Labour, social services, religious and other sectors 300
Members of the Legislative Council, representatives of members of the District Councils, representatives of the Heung Yee Kuk, Hong Kong deputies to the National People's Congress, and representatives of Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference 300

The term of office of the Election Committee shall be five years.

2. Candidates for the office of Chief Executive may be nominated jointly by not less than 150 members of the Election Committee. Each member may nominate only one candidate.

(Wikipedia) Hong Kong Chief Executive Election 2017

The pro-democracy group Citizens United in Action launched the "CE Civil Referendum 2017" to engage the Hong Kong people who had no vote in the election. It conducted a "civil nomination" from 7 to 22 February with the University of Hong Kong Public Opinion Programme (HKUPOP) and the Centre for Social Policy Studies (CSPS) of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University online. Any candidate that secures 37,790, one per cent of Hong Kong's registered voters, form the general public would be a "civil candidate" in which a "civil referendum" would be held from 10 to 19 March.

On 13 February, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data issued a statement concerning the "existing privacy risks" of the organisers collecting personal data. In response to that, the organisers updated their system afterward and extended the nomination period until 28 February.


February 27, 2017 21:00 (PopVote)
  John Tsang: 9,175
  Leung  Kwok-hung: 6,939
  Woo Kwok Hing: 2,519
  Carrie Lam: 157
  Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee: 105

- Compare this against a public opinion poll:

(Hong Kong Research Association) 1,532 persons age 18 or over were interviewed by telephone February 15-25, 2017.

Q5. If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow, which of the following announced candidates will you support?
36%: Carrie Lam
35%: John Tsang
13%: Woo Kwok Hing
8%: Regina Ip
3%: Others
5%: No opinion

So far the civil nomination phase is arguably different from the voting stage. But if the self-selection mechanism continues to show itself in the civil voting phase, then PopVote is a useless small-circle game with no reference value. The $1.5 million is down the toilet.

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 25, 2017.

Chief executive contender John Tsang has secured 160 nominations and has become the first to submit them out of the major four contenders. He said on Friday that he may submit early next week but his office made a surprise announcement on Saturday morning that he would make a visit to the Electoral Affairs Commission office in Wan Chai. Tsang said he asked his team worked over time on Friday night to complete the clerical work. With 160 nominations mostly from the pro-democracy camp, Tsang only passed the requirement of 150 nominations by a small margin.

But he refused to give a breakdown of nominations from the pro-democracy and the pro-Beijing camps. “I have always said we should not draw a boundary in any matter, if you draw a line, then Hong Kong is in confrontation, this is not ideal,” Tsang said. “It is also not appropriate for me to give a breakdown because the confirmation process [by the electoral office] is underway.” He said he submitted ten more nominations in case some are invalidated.

Internet comments:

- The list of nominations for John Tsang.

It has been reported that John Tsang had 35 pro-establishment electors nominating him. However, it would seemed that the classification was based upon the organizational affiliation rather than individual position. Elector Yip Hing-cheung is a member of the Catholic sub-sector in the religious sector, but he was randomly chosen from among Catholic candidates. In truth, he is a member of the post-Umbrella Movement Shopping Revolution. Also Kwan Ka-lun and Li Yu-ming of the Chinese Medicine sub-sector have declared that they support double universal suffrage. So the number should be adjusted downwards to 32 instead of 35.

- John Tsang got zero nominations from the 543 electors in 18 sub-sectors: Heung Yee Kuk; Agriculture and Fisheries; Insurance; Transport; Labour; Real Estate and Construction; Commercial (Second); Industrial (First); Industrial (Second); Finance; Import and Export; Catering; the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference; Employers' Federation of Hong Kong; Hong Kong and Kowloon District Councils; New Territories District Councils; Hong Kong Chinese Enterprises Association; National People's Congress.

For a candidate who claims to unite all of Hong Kong together, there is a lot of work still to be done.

- The ex-Financial Secretary for nine years got zero nominations from the Finance sub-sector?

- If John Tsang wants to do anything with Basic Law Article 23 and/or constitutional reform, then it has to go through Basic Law Article 159:

The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region.

Right down John Tsang has drawn zero support from the Hong Kong delegates to the National People's Congress. All 31 out them nominated Carrie Lam instead. How is he going to get to two-thirds?

- John Tsang will say that he had done his part of the work by forwarding the proposal of the pan-democrats but unfortunately the process was stalled by the other parties. As such, he cannot be blamed.

- At my company, the president always tell his underlings: "I hired you to solve problems. I did not hire you to tell me how difficult and intractable the problems are."

- Unauthorized campaign posters don't help:


John Tsang:
The spokesperson for a new generation of Opposition

- (Oriental Daily) February 25, 2017. Why was John Tsang so anxious to submit the nomination forms that he almost tripped and fell down? Because he learned that pressure were being applied to those pro-establishment electors who have nominated him. Under the rules, if an elector submits multiple nominations, the first one takes priority over all others. Therefore he wants his nominations to be entered first.

Out of the 160 nominations for John Tsang, 80% are from the pro-democracy camp and 20% from the pro-establishment camp. Of the latter, he had no nominations from the major political parties (such as DAB and FTU) or political blocs (National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference). He was supposed to be friendly with the Real Estate and Construction, Industrial and Commercial electors, but he got zero nominations from them.

- (Wen Wei Po) February 28, 2017. James Tien, honorary president of the Liberal Party, said that John Tsang wanted to get 100 pro-establishment nominations and 50 non-establishment nominations. As it turned out, many pro-establishment electors did not come through. In order to reach 150 total nominations, he had to modify his positions on Basic Law Article 23 legislation and constitutional reform to satisfy the Democracy 300+ electors.

John Tsang started off with wanting to restart constitutional reform on the basis of the August 31st resolution and he wants it done by 2020. He has now adopted the new position in which the August 31st resolution is not even mentioned. John Tsang also started off with saying that it was necessary to introduce Basic Law Article 23 legislation. He has now said that he will hold a white paper consultation (note: a white paper is a draft proposal which the government neither supports nor opposes and which may or may not lead to anything). This is the reason why so many pro-establishment electors cannot nominate him.

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 27, 2017.

With support from 180 electors, Woo Kwok-hing has become the second candidate to hand in the requisite number of nominations to officially run in Hong Kong’s chief executive election. The 71-year-old former High Court judge handed in his nominations at 4:30pm on Monday, at the Electoral Affairs Commission in Wanchai. For a candidate to officially run as chief executive, 150 nominations from the 1,200-member small-circle Election Committee are required. Woo received 47 new nominations on Saturday, which took his total to 156. All of Woo’s nominations came from pro-democracy electors, including those in the medical, health services and social welfare sectors. He told reporters over the weekend that he initially had the support of one pro-establishment elector, but that elector decided not to nominate him in the end.

Internet comments:

- Woo Kwok-hing said that all his 180 nominations came from non-establishment electors. Why won't any pro-establishment electors vote for him? Because (Hong Kong Free Press) Woo said that he would have participated in the Occupy movement if he were young, because young people – including his teenage self – tend to be “radical.” He added that young people would “lose face” if they did not join the protests when their friends did. The retired judge also said that the Occupy protests were “fun” for young people, as they could camp out, receive free meals, get tutorial help, and have late night conversations with friends.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Woo Kwok-hing told reporters that he was "200 per cent determined" to stop rival contender Carrie Lam from being elected, criticising her as being more authoritarian and less sensitive to public opinion than incumbent leader Leung Chun-ying.

- What kind of candidacy is this? The mission is to stop a rival candidate. The good news is that nobody has be bothered with reading Woo's 99-page policy platform.

- Woo Kwok-hing actually supported 181 nomination forms, but there was a duplicate (two nominations from the same Chinese Medicine sub-sector elector). How can a ex-judge be so negligent about paperwork? One of the nominations from a Social Welfare sub-sector elector was ruled invalid. Did anyone bother to check the paperwork there?

(SCMP) February 28, 2017.

The front runner in Hong Kong’s leadership race, Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, has displayed her dominant advantage over her rivals by securing nearly four times the minimum number of nominations needed to qualify as an official chief executive candidate.

The former No 2 official on Tuesday submitted a total of 579 nominations from the Election Committee that will pick the city’s next leader on March 26, just 22 votes short of the final number needed to win the race.

The result dwarfs the number of nominations submitted to the Electoral Affairs Office by her election rivals, John Tsang Chun-wah and Woo Kwok-hing.

Speaking to the press after handing in her nominations on Tuesday, the former chief secretary said: “I have just submitted a total of 579 nominations to the Electoral Affairs Office. I hope that once they have been validated, I will become a candidate in the chief executive election.”

Chaotic scenes surrounded Lam’s appearance at the Electoral Affairs Office, with dozens protesters from the League of Social Democrats and People Power chanting and demanding to “connect” with her – a reference to the chief executive contender’s campaign slogan “We Connect”. They said Lam’s slogan should instead have been “We collude”, given her total reliance on Beijing loyalists and zero support from pan-democrats. Scuffles ensued as Lam struggled to leave the building. One security guard was even pushed to the ground.

Internet comments:

- (Bastille Post) Earlier this morning, Carrie Lam submitted 579 nominations. This is less than the 600 that would be required to win. Naturally, some people will say that she doesn't have enough to win. But if you scrutinize the list of those electors who have not voted yet, then it should be clear that she has not gone all out.

Out of the 276 that have not yet declared, the following should be in the bag for Carrie Lam:

57 votes, Hong Kong Island/Kowloon District Councils
55 votes, Labour sector (Federation of Trade Unions)
 13 votes, Hong Kong Chinese Enterprises Association

There is no suspense as to whether Carrie Lam will win or not. The only question is the margin of victory.

- There are other ways to stop the Carrie Lam Mean Machine. When she went down to the Electoral Affairs Commission to hand in her nominations, the League of Social Democrats and People Power showed up as well. Here is a video of a pro-democracy People Power uncle punching a woman. If only dozens more Valiant Warriors showed up, Carrie Lam would not be able to hand in her nominations. There will be plenty more such opportunities between now and voting day on March 26th. Long live Freedom! Long live Democracy! Death to Carrie Lam!

- The demographic analysis of polling data shows that Carrie Lam has greater support among women and senior citizens. All the more better because they are easier to beat up.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 1, 2017.

The League of Social Democrats/People Power contingent included demonstration regulars such as Avery Ng, Raphael Wong, Tsang Kin-sing, etc. They arrived early at Admiralty Centre and raised banners. Although the area was segregated into entrance/exit lanes, demonstration zone and press zone, they simply went back and forth at will.

Carrie Lam arrived by car and went from the parking lot to the Electoral Affairs Commission. The demonstrators complained that she was "using the backdoor." They wanted to charge into building through the side door but did not succeed. Carrie Lam was inside for more than one hour. So the demonstrators tried various other means to charge into the building. Some of the reporters told them not to press forward.

Several demonstrators led by Tsang Kin-sing carried their banners among the reporters and used their megaphones to chant "We don't want small-circle election!" But Tsang was rather unprofessional because he held a phone to converse while demonstrating at the same time. They also displayed various demonstration tools to the press, such as calling Carrie Lam an African monk (note: in Cantonese, this phrase sounds exactly like the phrase for "asking for hatred.").

The demonstrators had previously reached an agreement with the Carrie Lam Campaign Office that all they wanted was to hand a petition letter to Lam and then they would leave. But when Lam showed up, some of them left while the rest continued to cause chaos. They screamed that if Lam could not even control a demonstration, then she is unqualified to become Chief Executive. Finally other members dragged them away.

- Someone should complain to the Equal Opportunities Commission about the use of the prejudicial and discriminatory use of the term "African monk."

- (Oriental Daily) February 28, 2017. Yet another security guard down for the count after the clash.

- According to the Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong security guards make an average of $12,000 per month. They are well-paid compared to lavatory cleaners who only make $9,000 per month. So they should just shut the fuck up and put up with the job requirements! If they don't like it, they can clean latrines!

Leung Kwok-hung

(SCMP) February 8, 2017.

Radical opposition lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung has become an unlikely new contender in Hong Kong’s leadership race, announcing his intention to run while urging his political allies not to vote for any pro-establishment candidates even if they are seen as “lesser evils”. His entry could throw a spanner in the works for the pan-democratic camp as it attempts to tip the scales with the best use of its 326 votes in the 1,194-member Election Committee that will pick the next chief executive in March.

The man nicknamed “Long Hair” because of his trademark locks said on Wednesday he would officially throw his hat in the ring only if he managed to secure 37,790 votes from the public – 1 per cent of the city’s registered voters – in an unofficial civil referendum held by post-Occupy protest group Citizens United in Action.

“I used to hold a stance of not voting, not nominating and not running in any small-circle election, so [my decision to run] is indeed a very huge change in my position,” he said. “But I think the pan-democratic camp should never vote for any of the four pro-establishment contenders who cannot represent our camp at all.” “I am not here to mess up the party but to truly reflect the spirit enshrined in the 2014 Umbrella Movement, the calls of Hongkongers and the voice of those low-income people who have always been oppressed,” Leung said.

Leung also said his participation in the civil referendum was an implementation of the public nomination mechanism, which was a demand shared by Occupy protesters in 2014 when they called for all eligible voters to be allowed to name chief executive hopefuls.

While the pan-democrats were lukewarm to Leung’s announcement, the Beijing-friendly bloc immediately dismissed his suitability as a candidate.

John Tsang, who was expected to seek the help of the pan-democrats to secure the 150 nominations required to qualify for the race, welcomed Leung’s participation. When asked if that meant fewer pan-democrats would nominate him, he replied: “I hope to garner support from the entire political spectrum.”

Another candidate eyeing pan-democratic votes, retired judge Woo Kwok-hing, said he was not worried that Leung would split his support as they had very different election platforms. “Leung’s participation in the race is a political gesture, and such a gesture would further divide society,” Woo said.

Election rival Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee also said Leung would have no impact on her bid because of their very different characters and background. “I think [the pan-democrats] are not stubborn and rigid – a lot of them are discontented about society and governance, and if I am elected, it is more likely for me to improve governance,” Ip said.

Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, the former chief secretary widely regarded as Beijing’s preferred choice, did not comment.

(Liberty Times) February 9, 2017.

At his launch press conference, Leung Kwok-hung was accompanied by his own League of Social Democrats members, Demosisto (with Nathan Law and Joshua Wong), People Power members, Land Justice League executive committee member Chu Hoi Dick and legislator Lau Siu-lai. Leung said that he will enter officially after he obtains 38,000 civil nominations. The civil nominations will come from online voting at PopVote.hk or signatures at street booths (manned by volunteers from League of Social Democrats, Demosisto, People Power and others).

(HK 01) February 24, 2017.

On February 25, Leung Kwok-hung announced the end of his effort to gather civil nominations. As of 7pm on February 24, Leung has 6,562 online nominations and about 14,000 in-person signatures. He is at least 10,000 short of the 38,000 goal. Since the online system is down and they have only a limited number of street booths, the goal will be unattainable.

Based upon the HK01 calculations, more than 200 members of the 327 votes in the hands of Democracy 300+ have already committed to either John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing. Of the 145 nominations for John Tsang, at least 128 are Democracy 300+ members. Of the 92 nominations for Woo Kwok-hing, only one is pro-establishment. About 100 Democracy 300+ are undeclared as yet. Even if all of them voted for Leung Kwok-hung, he won't make the cut. So even if Leung Kwok-hung gets enough civil nominations, he won't get become an official candidate.

Internet comments:

- In the 2016 Legislative Council elections, here are the number of votes for this gang:

Nathan Law (Demosisto, Hong Kong Island): 50,818
Christopher Lau (People Power, Hong Kong Island): 7,276
Avery Ng (League of Social Democrats, Kowloon West): 6,811
Lau Siu-lai (Teacher Siu-lai's Classroom, Kowloon West): 38,183
Tam Tak Chi (People Power, Kowloon East): 31,815
Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats, New Territories East): 35,595
Raymond Chan Chi-chuen (People Power, New Territories East): 45,993
Wong Ho Ming (League of Social Democrats, New Territories West): 28,529
Chu Hoi Dick (Land Justice League, New Territories West): 84,121.

The grand total is 329,131 votes.

These people keep reminding us that they represent the will of 329,131 voters. Therefore we must obey them.

And now the moment of truth is here and the fate of Hong Kong is in the balance. So what happened to the 329,131 voters? Are they suffering from voter regret?


Thanks to 20,234 citizens for their support!!

- The Chief Executive election is a way for Leung Kwok-hung, Lau Siu-lai and Nathan Law to stay in the media limelight in order to raise more money for their DQ4 lawsuit. By dropping out, they will lose this media vantage point.

(YouTube) Here is the first of restructured Chief Executive campaign (without candidate Leung Kwok-hung). On this day, Carrie Lam was going to present her policy platform. Along comes Wong Ho-ming (League of Social Democrats), Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow (Demosisto), Lau Siu-lai and others to disrupt the press conference. Without doubt, this is just the first of many more to come. It will not stop the inexorable march of the Carrie Lam machine, but it will raise more money for the DQ4 before they get disqualified.

- Leung Kwok-hung was never going to be a serious candidate to lead Hong Kong. If elected, he would simply be proof that democracy is not working. Here are some scenarios under WHAT IF?

What if Chief Executive Leung Kwok-hung goes to the APEC meeting? Will he scratch his itching foot in front of the other leaders?

What if Chief Executive Leung Kwok-hung holds a press conference? Will social activist Leung Kwok-hung disrupt the event in his Che Guevara t-shirt? Will the police come in and cart him away?

- Leung Kwok-hung knew that he is not suitable as a Chief Executive candidate. He asked Audrey Eu to step in, but she refused. Chu Hoi-dick, Nathan Law and Joshua Wong are not old enough (40 years or older is the requirement). The low support for him says more about his personal suitability than about the idea behind this project.

Q1. Who do you think is most suitable to become the next Chief Executive?
42%: John Tsang
41%: Carrie Lam
8%: Woo Kwok Hing
4%: Regina Ip

Q2. Who do you think is has the best capability as the next Chief Executive?
48%: Carrie Lam
38%: John Tsang
5.9%: Woo Kwok Hing
5.8%: Regina Ip

(The Standard) February 27, 2017.

A survey shows John Tsang Chun-wah with a very slight edge over Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor as the favored candidate to become chief Executive. But the same survey then shows Lam thumping Tsang when it comes to perceptions of who has the abilities to be chief executive.

The findings are from a poll commissioned by Sing Tao News Corp, The Standard's parent company, from the Consumer Search Group, which interviewed 802 citizens by phone from February 17 to 23.

Asked who is the most suitable person to be chief executive, former financial secretary Tsang had 42 percent to ex-chief secretary Lam's 41 percent. Of other candidates, retired judge Woo Kwok-hing had 8 percent and Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee 4 percent.

Tsang had solid support from people aged from 18 to 29, with 65 percent saying he was most suitable compared to 21 percent for Lam. But Lam received more support among people aged 40 or above, with a 12 percentage points lead over Tsang from respondents aged 50 to 59 and 18 points from those aged 60 or more.

On who was the most able person to be the next leader, Lam had 48 percent to Tsang's 38 percent. Tsang again enjoyed an edge over Lam in the 18-29 age group with 55 percent to 35. But Lam beat Tsang in the older brackets, enjoying the biggest margin in the 40-49 age group at 54.5 percent to Tsang's 32.2. Woo had 5.9 percent and Ip 5.77 percent in terms of ability.

Although Tsang enjoyed a slight lead on the question of who is more suitable to be chief executive, CSG noted the difference of 1 percentage point falls within the margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

Research director Raymond Sun Chung-ping, responsible for the research, said the difference is statistically insignificant, but Lam's lead in the question about ability was obvious. "The problem about suitability could mean communication skills and relationship with the business sector," Sun said, "but for ability Lam is considered a good fighter while some consider Tsang lazy."

He said Lam's handling of the controversy on the Palace Museum operation in the West Kowloon Cultural District could have made the difference, as Lam solved the problem quickly. But many considered her as not following the rules, making people question whether she was suitable to be chief executive.

On the generation gap, Sun said it was best explained by general political affiliations between age groups rather than the person citizens support. "Most pro-democracy supporters are young so they support Tsang," he said. "People presuppose that Tsang represents the pro-democracy camp. As Tsang said, most of his nominations came from that camp." The older generation was more inclined to the establishment and leaned toward Lam.

Although the research had no analysis on respondents' educational background, Sun believed more of the older generation had lower academic qualifications.

Forty-six percent of respondents also said land and housing should be the priority for the next administration government. This was followed by health care (12 percent), economic development (11 percent) and education (9 percent). Fifty-eight of respondents from 18 to 29 showed particular concern on land and housing.

Sun said housing costs is the biggest concern of citizens, especially for the younger generation. "This is a demand- supply problem, and more land supply means lower housing prices."

On whether the national security law legislation linked to Basic Law Article 23 should be the first job of the new term administration, 55 percent "disagree" or "strongly disagree."

Consumer Search Group, established in 1982, serves clients in many sectors and provides regional and global marketing research. It is ranked ninth largest globally and is a marketing research pioneer in the mainland, being established there in 1994. It has eight teams with over 60 expert researchers.

(SCMP) February 22, 2017.

Hong Kong witnessed one of the most significant mass demonstrations in its history last night when 33,000 serving and former police officers held a show of support for colleagues who were jailed for assaulting an activist during the 2014 Occupy protests.

The mass rally, held on a soccer pitch at the Police Sports and Recreation Club in Kowloon Tong, was described by one officer in attendance as “the largest-ever single gathering of police officers the world has ever seen”.

The last time the city’s police were involved in a such a large-scale display of discontent was almost half a century ago, in the bad old days of the 1970s. That was when thousands of officers took to the streets to protest against the setting up of the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

However, last night’s show of discontent – which was closed to the media – stood in stark contrast to the often ill-tempered nature of the 1970s protests. The massed ranks of mostly former police officers were out to register – with a disciplined dignity – their condemnation of what they believe to be the harsh and unjust treatment of seven colleagues by the city’s judicial system.

The remarkable scenes, with many turning up in white as a mark of solidarity, followed the jailing for two years of seven officers for assaulting Occupy activist Ken Tsang, 41. The sentencing sparked an outpouring of condemnation by police officers and sections of the public, who complained that the courts were being far more lenient by comparison with Occupy protesters who broke the law.

Another officer at the rally, which included a significant number of family members of serving and ex-police officers, said: “This is not a protest against the courts or Hong Kong’s judicial system, nor an attempt to undermine the rule of law. It is a deep and heartfelt expression of genuine support for our colleagues and their families, who we feel have been unfairly treated and whose actions came out of a time of highly charged political emotion and stress.”

Prominent among those who made an appearance was former security minister Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, now a candidate for the city’ top job, along with National People’s Congress deputy Maria Tam, who took to the stage and addressed the crowd, calling for assistance for the families of the seven jailed officers. Other personalities attending included lawmakers Priscilla Leung Mei-fun, Elizabeth Quat and Junius Ho Kwan-yiu.

Despite Police Commissioner Stephen Lo Wai-chung’s sympathy for the jailed officers and earlier plea for public understanding of their predicament, none of the force’ s top brass turned up. It is believed that only serving officers up to the rank of chief superintendent took part. Asked if the top brass were also in attendance, an officer at the meeting said: “No, only up to Chief Superintendent level.”

The huge turnout threatens to escalate an already significant chorus of criticism aimed at District Court Judge David Dufton and the judiciary as a whole.

Photos:

Videos:

HKG Pao https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/692757550929523/ An unprecedented crowd walking from the intersection of Nathan Road and Boundary Street towards the Police Sports and Recreation Club

HKG Pao https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/692764564262155/ Lining up outside to get into the Police Sports and Recreation Club

Good News Hong Kong https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1425423544198244/ Lining up to enter the Police Sports and Recreation Club building

HKG Pao https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/692748297597115/ Panoramic shot of crowd on field.

HKG Pao https://www.facebook.com/368513580020590/videos/692789934259618/ Taken from the middle of the crowd on the field.

HK Current Affairs Summary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfbDO_QIcZU View from the podium

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) February 22, 2017.

The organizers said that there were 33,000 persons at the peak, with 22,000 in the grass field and another 11,000 persons indoors.

- The organizers (the Junior Police Officers Association (JPOA), the Hong Kong Police Inspectors' Association (HKPIA), the Hong Kong Police Superintendents' Association (HKPSA), Overseas Police Inspectors Association) had anticipated a turnout of 5,000. They got a lot more.

- Here are the Yellow Ribbon predictions for the rally that will take place later in the day. (Apple Daily) February 22, 2017.

Yesterday police officers issued calls via Whatsapp groups to attend the rally organized by the four police associations. A police sergeant cited the case of the bus drivers sticking to the traffic rules to avoid traffic violations: "Are we police officers even less united than bus drivers?" He said that there are 24,000 junior police officers. "It is impossible that 10,000 of them are working the middle shift!" He emphasized that if fewer than 10,000 people show up today, people will look down on them. He said that everybody must show their unity, "We need more than 20,000 to show our force! We cannot have even one fewer. Let us get everybody to go!"

- The biggest previous police demonstration (5,000 strong) in Hong Kong history until tonight ...

(Ming Pao Canada) October 27, 2014.

On 28 October 1977, thousands of police officers and their relatives held an angry demonstration against the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Some of them even stomped into the ICAC building, injuring several ICAC officers.

1. Background

Corruption was rampant in Hong Kong in the 1960s and 1970s. For instance, people who needed medical treatment might not get it if they would not tip the ambulance crew, and citizens had no choice but to offer bribes when they applied for public housing or school places.

But it was police officers that were most unscrupulous. Lowly-paid police officers on the beat demanded bribes from shops and stores, while their superiors amassed great fortunes by putting up police positions for sale.

2. The establishment of the ICAC

The establishment of the ICAC was triggered by the furore over Peter Godber, who was a Chief Superintendent of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force. Discovered to have amassed no less than HK$4.3 million, he fled to Britain to the outrage of Hong Kong citizens. To address their anger, Murray MacLehose, who was then governor of Hong Kong, set up the ICAC to handle complaints about corruption.

That led to discontent among police officers, as corruption had been so widespread among them that basically policemen of all ranks could be convicted. The two sides increasingly came into conflict, as ICAC officers repeatedly made high-profile arrests in police stations, much to police officers' anxiety. This culminated in the 1977 clash.

3. The clash

Around 5,000 people who were police officers or their relatives descended on the Hong Kong Police Headquarters on 28 October 1977, demanding that Brian Slevin, who was then Commissioner of Police, address the "low morale" among them resulting from the ICAC's actions. About two hundreds of them made their way to the provisional headquarters of the ICAC in Admiralty. They clashed with ICAC officers, injuring five of them.

4. The decision of pardon

The colonial government was faced with a tough decision. Should the ICAC press on with (繼續) its investigation of corrupt police?

Immediately after the clash, Governor MacLehose convened an emergency meeting with Jack Cater, who was then ICAC Commissioner, and some senior officers of the police and the British Forces in Hong Kong. MacLehose reportedly thought of having the forces to deal with the situation. But the military disagreed, arguing that it would do Hong Kong no good to pit the military against the police.

Having weighed up the pros and cons, MacLehose announced on 5 November 1977 that all those who were suspected of bribery but had not been charged as of 1 January 1977 would be pardoned. The police were appeased, at the expense of the morale of ICAC officers.

- Because the police did not say "Death to Judge David" or "Death to Ken Tsang" tonight nor did they say that it was alright for the police to beat up citizens, there was nothing much to criticize about. Therefore the incident 40 years ago was brought out, with the comparison that the police were rotten and corrupt back then just as they are today.

Well, of course, things are not always equivalent. For example, 1997, the senior police officers were mostly British, such as Peter Godber.

- You can't reason with Yellow Ribbons:

When you talk to them about the Law, they want to talk to you about Democracy;
So you talk to them about Democracy, but they want to talk to you about Civil Rights;
So you talk to them about Civil Rights, but they talk to curse your mother out;
So you curse their mothers out, but they use physical force to attack you;
So you use physical force to fight back, but they summon the police;
So you summon the police, but they assault the police;
So the police fight back, but they want to talk to you about the Law.

- Only 33,000 people showed up. Hong Kong has a population of 7,300,000. So that means 7,300,000 - 33,000 = 7,267,000 approved of the 2-year-sentences against the seven Evil Cops. Since Hong Kong is a democracy, the majority wins.

- Buddy, this is a closed-door meeting. Attendance is restricted to current and retired police officers and their families. The Hong Kong Police Force has an establishment (as at 2017-01-31) of 29,377 disciplined officers supported by 4,579 civilian officers.  At any time of day, about 1/3 of the police force is on duty. So this is a huge turnout of off-duty and retired police officers.

- The demonstration will have a huge impact on the theory/practice of Hong Kong independence. Everybody knows that a newly independent Hong Kong Nation is going to need an army. So many people make the assumption that the paramilitary Hong Kong Police can be quickly upgraded into an army of 35,000 soldiers. The demonstration today showed that the Hong Kong Police cannot be trusted! If war breaks out with the neighboring county (=Cheena), the Hong Kong Police will probably stand with the People's Liberation Army. So now it is back to the drawing boards to figure out how to raise a completely new Hong Kong Nation army.

- Civic Passion has the right idea! All Hongkongers must begin to build themselves up physically. We must all begin to do weightlifting, jogging, swimming, pushups, basketball, volleyball, soccer, marathons, iron man, war games, etc.

- Sports? We got bad news today. (SCMP) February 22, 2017.

Chan Yuen-ting said she was hoping to learn a lot as she became the first woman to manage a team in the AFC Champions League – quite what she and her Eastern team took away from a brutal 7-0 humbling across the Pearl River Delta in Guangzhou only they will know.

If “don’t concede a penalty and have a man sent off in the first three minutes when you’re playing a team worth at least 10 times yours” was lesson one, lesson two might have been “furthermore, don’t have another man sent off with almost an hour still to play”.

Chan and Eastern – and likely the majority of Hong Kong football fans given that the opposition was from the mainland – had been hoping for a similar brave, backs-to-the-wall performance as that delivered by the Hong Kong national team in their two World Cup qualifiers against China in 2015.

On those nights, almost everything went right for Hong Kong. In Tianhe Stadium, in front of 38,000 and against Brazilian World Cup winner Luiz Felipe Scolari’s expensively-assembled six-times-in-succession Chinese champions, everything went wrong, immediately.

“We have learned a very valuable lesson today,” insisted Chan, just 28 and the first woman ever to coach a team to a title in a men’s professional league.

“Of course losing the game is a very big disappointment, but we learned we need to adjust our mentality as soon as possible [to compete in the Champions League].

“After the red card everything changed, all our tactics and plans had to be changed. And in a competition like this the pace is quite different from that we encounter in Hong Kong … it’s our debut and naturally we’ll make mistakes.”

Ricardo Goulart got Guangzhou off the mark after Wong Tsz-ho was sent off from one of Guangzhou’s first attacks, Australian referee Christopher Beath judging he had used his hand rather than his head in clearing a goal-bound shot off the line.

Chan’s plan to frustrate Guangzhou and their €40 million-worth of Brazlian talent was thus torn up and out the window with her players barely warmed up. To their credit, they held out for nearly another 20 minutes despite incessant pressure.

Wang Shangyuan added the second from close-range after Eastern goalkeeper Yapp Hung-fai failed to divert a corner to safety, and moments later, Guangzhou won another penalty; Goulart surprisingly let compatriot Alan take this one, and Yapp saved.

Liao Lisheng did make it 3-0 just after the half-hour, tapping in after Goulart waltzed through Eastern’s defence and squared the ball across the six-yard box for him, and with Eastern praying for half-time it got even worse.

Wong Chi-chung brought down Alan on the edge of the box and if that looked harsh, the referee’s decision to show him a second yellow was even tougher – but Eastern were down to nine.

With Guangzhou on a 3 million yuan bonus for every goal scored there was no danger of them letting up.

The second half was little more than a nice extension to Guangzhou’s pre-season in this their first competitive match, an interesting training exercise with Scolari’s side essentially playing 2-4-4 and Eastern desperately trying to keep them at bay.

Liao added another immediately after the restart, Alan made it five with a stunning long-range strike, Wang too got a second, and former Tottenham midfielder Paulinho ensured all the Brazilians got on the scoresheet with another fine strike for the seventh.

"Hero" Yapp Hung-fai's game statistics: 29 shots at goal, 7 goals allowed.


Payback

- Because there were 38,000 persons at a single location with historically low usage, the Internet was overloaded and people could not send out their Whatsapp messages and Facebook posts.

- Maria Tam Wai-chu and Leung Che-hung have promised to use their foundation (APO Relief Fund Limited) to raise money to help the seven policemen. Given the level of response today, they can easily raise several tens of millions. If each of the 38,000 persons gives $1,000 on the average, it would be $38 million already. And then there is the general public as well.

- It will be one to three weeks before APO Relief Fund is ready to accept donations. However, HKG Pao has announced that they will donate $100,000. Not to be outdone, tycoon Lam Kin-ngok said that he has pledges of $5 million already from his friends. Legislator Peter Shiu Ka-fai (Liberal Party) donated month of his salary ($95,180) too.

- (Headline Daily) February 28, 2017. As of 10am yesterday, the APO Relief Fund has received total donations of $11.78 million from 55 members of the Hong Kong delegation to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

- (SCMP) March 2, 2017.

Over HK$10 million has been donated to a fund set up by political heavyweight Maria Tam Wai-chu to support the families of the seven police officers jailed for two years for beating activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu at the height of the Occupy protests in 2014. The Hong Kong deputy to the National People’s Congress, who is also the founding president of the Junior Police Officers’ Association, made the announcement in Beijing on Thursday, saying the money came from public donations, including two cheques for HK$1 million each.

It is understood the two big cheques were from the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce and the Hong Kong Federation of Women. At least 92 people donated nearly HK$80,000 through the website set up by the fund on Wednesday.

WhatsApp messages are circulating among some police officers that The Friends of Hong Kong Association, mainly formed by delegates to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, donated nearly HK$12 million on Monday. The messages said that of this total, property developer Sino Group chairman Robert Ng Chee-siong donated HK$7 million, while former police chief Tang King-shing contributed HK$20,000.

The vice-chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Council, Christopher Cheung Wah-fung, reportedly gave HK$50,000. The move prompted concern from the pan-democrat group, Civil Human Rights Front, that the donation would undermine the image of the police watchdog.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) March 7, 2017.

Sixteen members of the entertainment industry have donated HK$7,777,777 to the APO Relief Fund, set up by Beijing loyalist Maria Tam Wai-chu for the families of seven police officers convicted last month of assault against pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang in 2014.

The donors included TVB boss Charles Chan Kwok-keung, TVB non-executive director Mona Fong Yat-wah, TVB CEO Mark Lee Po-on, China Star Entertainment Group chairman Charles Heung Wah- keung, and Sun Entertainment Culture founder Alvin Chau Cheok-wa, who all gave HK$1 million each.

Movie director Wong Jing and actor Eric Tsang Chi-wai were also among the donors. Heung’s wife, Tiffany Chen Ming-yin, presented a cheque to the fund on Sunday. She said it was a “coincidence” that all of the digits of the amount were seven. In Cantonese, the word “seven” has the same pronunciation as a swear word, but with a different tone.

The Taxi Drivers and Operators Association also donated around HK$456,000 to the fund on Sunday. A spokesperson said it raised the amount from more than 28,000 members within a week.

The relief fund said it has raised around HK$20 million so far.

 - (SCMP) March 6, 2017.

Senior police officers and a lawmaker have urged the families of the seven policemen jailed for beating Occupy activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu not to accept donations from businessmen with a dubious background as it might hurt the force’s image.

The remarks came after celebrities and personalities from the show business world on Sunday donated HK$7,777,777 to the fund set up by the founding president of the Junior Police Officers’ Association (JPOA), Maria Tam Wai-chu, bringing the total collected to more than HK$20 million.

Pan-democratic lawmaker and former corruption investigator Lam Cheuk-ting said the families and the force should not accept such donations as it could prompt questions about whether the force could carry out its duties impartially and independently.

“Some donors might have a past criminal record or their businesses may be relatively sensitive,” Lam said on Monday.

“I do believe that if the police force receive those donations without screening their backgrounds, that might jeopardise the image and credibility of the force.”

Lam also added acceptance of the money might be bound by bribery regulations as the families did not take the donations as “normal citizens”, but rather because of their links to the force.

- That's right, the APO Relief Fund needs to follow the procedures used by the Justice Defence Fund  (#631), where each and every donor was checked for Hong Kong ID's, mobile telephone numbers, fingerprints, DNA, Facebook posts, credit history, police records, etc.

- NOT! They just put a donation box out in the open and anybody can stuff money in it. No checking is done, because they respect the privacy of the donors.

- John Tsang announced that over the course of his 30-day crowdfunding campaign, a total of 25,991 donated a total of $5.14 million at an average of $198 per person. He does not say whether he had screened these donors for criminal records, involvement in sensitive businesses, etc.

-  What was legislator Lam Cheuk-ting talking about? What is the meaning behind "Some donors might have a past criminal record or their businesses may be relative sensitive"? Lam does not have to courage to spell out what he meant. Let me spell it out for him: the whole world knows that he is referring to China Star Entertainment Group chairman Charles Heung Wah-keung, his wife Tiffany Chen, Sun Entertainment Culture founder Alvin Chau Cheok-wa and Emperor Group chairman Albert Yeung Sau-shing. If Lam spells it out, he will face 'consequences' (whatever they may be). And Lam does not want to face 'consequences.'

- What 'consequences'? The simplest one is friendly fire, in which a friend (or even Lam Cheuk-ting's own Democratic Party) received donations from 'a person with a past criminal record' or 'owns a relatively sensitive businesses.' There will have to be many contortions to rationalize the double standards.

- Of course, Charles Heung and Alvin Chau do not have criminal records. Lam Cheuk-ting is saying that it is his subjective opinion that Heung's father was the founder of the Sun Yee On triad and that Chau once worked in the casino industry are troubling to him. Well, let me tell you this: It is my subjective opinion that the fact that Lam's Democratic Party has received millions in dark money from Jimmy Lai is troubling to me.

P.S. Of course, Lam Cheuk-ting is a Honorable Legislative Councilor, whereas I am a Little People. So our subjective beliefs carry very different weights.

- (SCMP) March 7, 2017.

The head of a charity fund set up to aid seven Hong Kong policemen jailed for beating Occupy activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu has rejected donations from three unnamed parties after public doubts about the donors’ background.

The move by Maria Tam Wai-chu, who is also a senior delegate to China’s national legislative body, came as some senior police officers and a lawmaker urged the fund not to accept donations from businessmen of dubious repute as doing so might tarnish the force’s image.

Tam is attending the annual “two sessions”, the founding president of the Junior Police Officers’ Association told an RTHK programme that three donations from the entertainment sector were returned Monday. She did not disclose the donors’ names or the amounts.

- National People's Congress's Hong Kong delegate Maria Tam Wai-chu is a founder of the Junior Police Officers Association. She said that her banker friends said that they will hire the seven policemen as soon as they get out of jail. She said that although people are upset, they must respect the judicial system in Hong Kong and refrain from criticizing the court verdict.

- This event is a closed-door affair with ID checks for current and retired police officers and their families at the gates. No ID, no admission. The organizers know exactly how many people came through the gates. This is unlike the Civil Human Rights Front which counts everyone on the street as being part of their demonstration march.

- According to Hong Kong Free Press, "an HKFP journalist was earlier ejected from the rally."  We need the Hong Kong Journalists Association to come out immediately with a forceful denouncement against this restriction of freedom of press as well as the right of the people to know.

- When your daughter gets married, I insist on crashing the party because the people have the right to know if any of your guests have past criminal records or own relatively sensitive businesses.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Pan-democrats react:

In a Facebook post, pro-democracy ex-lawmaker Cyd Ho cited Paragraph 34 of Chapter 6 of the Police General Orders: "A police officer shall at all times abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of his/her duties, or which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that it may so interfere."

"How many people are here because of comradeship, but have forgotten justice, the rule of law, social responsibility and humility as a public servant?" asked pro-democracy lawmaker and Occupy activist Nathan Law on Facebook. "If moral education lags behind identity politics, there will only be left with hatred."

Fellow pro-democracy lawmaker Lau Siu-lai wrote: "As law enforcement, [they are] unwilling to accept sanctions from the law... this is the true danger to peace in society!"

- (Ming Pao) Legislators Nathan Law and Chu Hoi Dick cited Paragraph 34 of Chapter 6 of the Police General Orders as well as Section 7 of the Public Order Ordinance. They demanded to hold a special Legislative Council session.

- Duh, why are they citing the law? They have told us many times before that when it comes to matters of great right and wrong, people should and must engage in civil disobedience of the written law.

- Afterwards, they can surrender themselves to the police and face the legal consequences. So who will 40,000 police officers surrender themselves to?

- As with all Blue Ribbon demonstrations, there are the obligatory photos showing the mounds of trash that they create, plus the obligatory interview with the street sweeper who has to clean up the mess.

(Oriental Daily)

Here we go ... oops ... sorry ... my bad ... these photos were the mess that Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching and friends left outside the China Liaison Office in early November 2016 to protest the National People's Congress Standing Committee interpretation of Basic Law Article 104.

Ah, here is the photo of the field at the Police Sports and Recreation Club after the rally. True to being a Disciplinary Service, the Hong Kong Police took their own litter away. Nothing can be seen. So this photo will not be published tomorrow in the newspapers, because it failed to denigrate the Police.

- The TVB reporter thought that the most important question of the day was to ask the the organizer whether they were holding an unlawful assembly.

- CAP 245: Public Order Ordinance. Section 18. Unlawful assembly

(1) When 3 or more persons, assembled together, conduct themselves in a disorderly, intimidating, insulting or provocative manner intended or likely to cause any person reasonably to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace, or will by such conduct provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace, they are an unlawful assembly. (Amended 31 of 1970 s. 11)

(2) It is immaterial that the original assembly was lawful if being assembled, they conduct themselves in such a manner as aforesaid.

(3) Any person who takes part in an assembly which is an unlawful assembly by virtue of subsection (1) shall be guilty of the offence of unlawful assembly and shall be liable- (Amended 31 of 1970 s. 11)

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for 5 years; and
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 3 years.

So, do you "reasonably fear" that "a breach of the peace" will occur? I mean, if they clean up all the trash after them, who knows what else they might do!

- (Wen Wei Po) Senior Counsel legislator Alvin Yeung (Civic Party) responded to a media question and said that assemblies in private locations do not violate the Crimes Ordinance. For example, nobody ever applies for a permit to hold a wedding banquet with 50 tables for 600 persons.

- Centaline Property Agency holds its annual company dinner at the Wanchai Convention Centre with 300 tables for more than 3,000 persons. We must remember to check whether they received permission from the Police Commissioner to do so.

- (Wen Wei Po) January 4, 2012. The Lion Clubs International District 303 (Hong Kong & Macao, China) held a banquet for 600 tables for 6,000 persons. More than $2 million in charity donations was raised for needy persons.

Sorry, according to Cyd Ho, Chu Hoi Dick and Nathan Law, all those in attendance were participating in an unlawful assembly and must be taken downtown for ID checks, photos, fingerprinting and statements. The Secretary of Justice will then seek legal advice from retired British and Australian judges to decide whether to prosecute or not.

- Going for two Guinness World Record at the same time? First, the largest number of persons attending a Chinese Poon Choi dinner. Second, the largest number of persons arrested for participation in an unlawful gathering.

- The Civil Human Rights Front spoke of the police explanation that it was a private meeting of association members. If the police don't need an application, neither should any other organization. Therefore the Civil Human Rights Front is considering changing the July 1st demonstration march into a general membership meeting without needing to application.

- Duh, the two police organizations held their members-only meeting inside the not-open-to-the-public Police Sport and Recreation Centre in Sham Shui Po District whereas the Civil Human Rights Front assemble in the very public Victoria Park and march in the very public streets.

- Whatsapp message:

A call went to the Sham Shui Po Police Station that the police unions did not apply for a letter of no-objection for their assembly tonight. Here is what the police officer on duty said: "Sir, this meeting is for members only. This is not your unlawful assembly. This is a meeting of our members. Only members are admitted. Not everyone is allowed in. You cannot enter. If you hold a party inside your home, you don't have to apply for permission."

- Hong Kong University Faculty of Law senior lecturer Cheung Tat-ming said that this assembly was clearly an assembly under the definition of the Public Order Ordinance. The police responded yesterday that the meeting was professional/business in nature, being a meeting of the members of certain professional associations.

- Every day, elementary/secondary schools in Hong Kong begin with general assemblies. If there are more than 500 students in the school, the police commissioner must be notified. Also when the Hong Kong University Convocation held their Extraordinary General meetings to vote (#314 and #388), did they remember to notify the police commissioner first?

- Alan Leong (Civic Party) said that the Hong Kong Police is in charge of law enforcement and must therefore know the Public Order Ordinance sections on unlawful gatherings. Therefore, this was a case that the Police knew the law and violated the law in reckless disregard. I completely agree with Alan Leong -- the Civic Party (including Alan Leong and many others) include many senior barristers who know the the Public Order Ordinance sections on unlawful gatherings because they have worked to defend many clients in the past. During Occupy Central, these barristers participated in and supported the unlawful gatherings in the streets and the breach of peace. Therefore, this was a case in which lawyers know the law and violated the law in reckless disregard. Therefore all participating barristers should be immediately disbarred.

- (Wen Wei Po) According to the Hong Kong Police Inspectors' Association, the event was announced as a general membership meeting. Based upon past experience, they expected at most a few hundred people to show up. In the end, tens of thousands of members showed up unexpectedly. "Current and retired police officers and their families can participate. We have no reason not to allow them to come in."

- The point about Unlawful Assembly is that not every assembly (such as a wedding banquet) is unlawful just because the organizers did not apply for police permission. It is about what happens during that assembly. The newspapers will be filled with commentary about how the police are trying to justify beating a handcuffed suspect, that they are attacking the verdict, etc. Those who say that have not actually listened carefully to what was actually said.

The slogan of the day is: "爭公義、還法治" (fight for justice, restore rule of law). It was not: "Kill Judge David."

Here is a summary of the key points from the rally.

  • Half the Hong Kong Police force showed up today on three days' notice
  • Express deep sadness at seven colleagues being sentenced to jail
  • Two directions for future actions: How to support the seven colleagues and the future direction of the Hong Kong Police
  • Applied for and obtained permission to raise funds from within the police force to support the seven colleagues to appeal the court verdict
  • Tam Wai-chu has promised to arrange support
  • The seven colleagues are concerned that various extraneous actions may affect the appeal process
  • Will try to get dignity for the police
  • Various colleagues have been treated unfairly (such as being insulted) in the line of duty, but they cannot talk back
  • It is unfair to be sent to jail for trying to maintain law and order
  • Will try to seek legislation to protect the dignity of the police
  • Will write to the Chief Executive to ask for such legislation
  • Thanks to the many Legislative Councilors who came today to show their support for the Hong Kong Police
  • All official actions will be announced by the Junior Police Officers' Association

- Here is the Apple Daily A1 front page headline:

Half of the Police support seven criminals; 33,000 persons in a show of force; "We want our colleagues come back out not guilty."

When did they say that?

- (Bastille Post) Former Independent Police Complaints Council member Edwin Cheng said that the police senior brass should do a better job at reassuring the ranks that the case of the seven policemen was an isolated but unacceptable incident. "Matters of right and wrong must be made clear" and "It is not a good thing to hold a large assembly to let off steam."

Cheng said that police officers must not criticize judges. He said: "If you don't like other people to call you Evil Police, then why are you saying Dog Judge?" He said that everybody should respect the appeal system and that it was a bad thing for persons within the same system to attack each other.

- There are so many gems here.

The case of the seven policemen is unacceptable -- At which point during the assembly did anyone say that the seven policemen were innocent? Or should be set free for doing the right thing? Or that physical torture is justifiable?

It is not a good thing to hold a large assembly to let off steam -- What, if anything, did Edwin Cheng have to say about Occupy Central then?

Police officers must not criticize judges -- At which point during the assembly did anyone criticize Judge David Dufton or any other judge? Or say "Dog Judge"?

Those things and many more things were said by someone or the other on Facebook. But why is that being attributed to the police rally?

- Look at this video: https://www.facebook.com/standnewshk/videos/1236355193116765/ A man on the podium shouted "Fuck your mother!" A citizen can "reasonably fear" that "a breach of the peace" will occur when someone screams "Fuck your mother!" at you.

- The man was only illustrating what the police had to put up with during Occupy Central. Those Occupy yahoos unlawfully blockaded the streets and stopped traffic. When the police showed up, the yahoos screamed "Fuck your mother!" into their faces. Even though the police can "reasonably fear" that "a breach of the peace will occur", they had to put up with it because their orders were to do nothing. So the screaming continued day after day after day.

- Already people have distorted this scene as the attendees saying "Fuck your mother" to Judge David Dufton. Are these people lazy and naïve? Or was it intentional distortion?

- Here is another gem from Alan Leong: Message to the police: "How can we trust you if you shout Fuck Your Mother in unison in public?" Eh, the police speaker was merely showing what they had to put up with during Occupy Central. Message to Occupy Central people (including Alan Leong): "How can we trust you if you shout Fuck Your Mother in unison in public?"

Video of foul insults from Occupy Central people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFmYq77oq08. Well, what's it going to be? If you think that people who chant Fuck Your Mother in unison in public, then how can I trust you? If you think that these are isolated incidents which do not represent the movement as a whole, then why are you going after the police?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJZb0FLyMQw November 26, 2014. Sai Yeung Choi Street South, Mong Kok district.

- (HKG Pao) Among the guests/observers at the event were legislators Junius Ho, Leung Mei Fun and Eunice Yung. Because they work in the legal field, Yellow Ribbons are writing to the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong against them for creating undue pressure on judges and perverting the course of justice. They said that the "Fuck your mother" chant by tens of thousands of attendees was directed against Judge David Dufton. Even if the three did not make that chant, their acquiescence showed that they were supportive of the criminal threat against the judge. Therefore the three should be permanently disbarred.

- If what these three did was creating undue pressure on judges, then what about the pan-democrats' demands on the status of the DQ4 legislators Nathan Law, Leung Kwok-hung, Lau Siu-lai and Yiu Chung-yim? Was that also undue pressure on the judges? Perverting the course of justice for a case scheduled to be heard?

- The assembly by the off-duty and retired police officers pertains to certain Hong Kong core values. Firstly, the organizers are Junior Police Officers Association and the Hong Kong Police Inspectors' Association. These are trade unions just like the Hong Kong Aircrew Officers Association, Motor Transport Workers Union, etc. Under Hong Kong Basic Law Article 27:

Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.

What do trade unions do?

(Your Article Library) Trade Union Functions: Top 6 Main Functions Performed by Trade Unions

(1) Increasing co-operation and well-being among workers
(2) Securing facilities for workers
(3) Establishing contacts between workers and employers
(4) Trade unions working for the progress of the employees
(5) Safeguarding the interests of the workers
(6) Provision of labor welfare

At this assembly, the union members were discussing (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6). They wanted protection in a hostile work environment, and they wanted to help seven fellow union members and their families. What is wrong with that?

Article 27 also guarantees freedom of speech. At this membership meeting, members were allowed to speak if they choose. Their speeches were not pre-censored. A couple parts of those speeches were controversial. The two organizing police groups and the Hong Kong Police said that those speeches do not represent their institutional positions. That is all. This happens every day in Hong Kong -- just take a look at the standard disclaimer on the editorial pages of all the newspapers.

Secondly, under Hong Kong Basic Law Article 35,

Hong Kong residents shall have the right to confidential legal advice, access to the courts, choice of lawyers for timely protection of their lawful rights and interests or for representation in the courts, and to judicial remedies.

The seven policemen have the right to appeal their sentences to the relevant courts of appeal. About 20% of all cases are reversed on appeal. Just look at Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching who keep appealing and appealing, and they won't accept their fates even after all appeals are exhausted.

- (SCMP) Hong Kong’s crisis of confidence in the rule of law and law enforcement. By Yonden Lhatoo. February 23, 2017.

Hong Kong, we have a problem. And it’s a serious one that threatens the very foundations of our city.

On Wednesday night, some 33,000 serving and former police officers and their supporters held a rally that one attendee described as “the largest-ever single gathering of police officers the world has ever seen”. The last time our city saw its finest in such distress and open defiance against the establishment was back in the 1970s when the Independent Commission Against Corruption was set up to tackle rampant bribery among the force. A mass purge of corrupt officers caused such resentment among the ranks that angry policemen even tried to storm the ICAC headquarters in protest.

This time, the catalyst is the jailing of seven officers who punched, kicked and stomped on a hog-tied activist in a dark corner of Tamar Park at the height of the Occupy protests of 2014. The assault, captured by television cameras, sparked outrage in a city where men in blue are usually expected to be perennial pacifists.

Look up videos depicting police brutality in far more advanced democracies and this particular incident could be a walk in the park by comparison, but we hold our police force to higher standards, and those seven officers deserve to go to jail for what they did.

But understand where their supporters are coming from. More than two years after thousands of protesters blocked roads and broke multiple laws for 79 straight days in the name of democracy, this is the net result of justice so far: seven police officers behind bars and slaps on the wrist for everyone else. Not one of the leaders of the movement has been punished.

Throughout the Occupy protests, frontline police officers were not only forced to stand by and watch people break the law with impunity, but also expected to protect the lawbreakers from irate members of the public whose livelihoods were affected by the road closures. Nobody was sure what was right or wrong any more.

Another ugly fallout from the jailing of the “magnificent seven” – as some have dubbed them – is the backlash against the judiciary.

The British judge who put them behind bars has been vilified and subjected to threats and racist abuse online, contempt of court be damned. One lawmaker, protected by parliamentary privilege, even branded the judge a “white skin with yellow heart”, a play on the colour symbolising the Occupy movement and the racist insult “yellow skin with white heart” for Asian people with Western values.

It’s not only our police force that’s at the crossroads. The ICAC itself is causing consternation after a stunning revelation during the trial of former chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, who has been jailed for 20 months for misconduct in office.

A High Court jury could not reach a verdict on a bribery charge against him, but it emerged that a key figure named by the prosecution, Bank of East Asia boss David Li Kwok-po, was not even approached by the ICAC during its 44-month investigation.

The graft-buster’s director of investigation explained in court that it was because they did not expect him to cooperate. Seriously? This is the ICAC we’re talking about, with its supposedly sweeping mandate to go after “tigers” and “flies” alike, in keeping with President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) national anti-corruption drive.

“Never in my judicial career have I seen a man fallen from so high,” the presiding judge said when he sent poor Donald to jail.

And never in my journalistic career have I seen this city facing such a crisis of confidence in the rule of law and law enforcement, the pillars that prevent us from sliding into certain ruin.

- Here are some of the digressions and deflections:

(Oriental Daily) February 23, 2017.

Legislator Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) asked why half of the Hong Kong Police did not show up for work and went instead to a "private party." Cheng wants to know, "Is there redundancy?"

- The Hong Kong Police work in three shifts (early, middle and late). What those who work the early and late shifts do during their off-duty time is their personal business.

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 23, 2017.

Lawyer Kevin Yam of the Progressive Lawyers Group told HKFP that the discussion of criminalising contempt of police is worrying. “Police already have a range of powers at their disposal to deal with anyone who is obstructing with the exercise of their functions,” he said, adding that existing laws such as common assault could be used against people who make threats against officers.

Yam said the proposed law could violate constitutional rights such as freedom of speech. He said that while the offence of contempt of court aims at protecting judicial independence – a pillar of the rule of law – “it is unclear how the [proposed] legislation has any deeper purpose beyond making police officers happy.”

“This is not a legal issue but a political issue – the only way you can deal with the issue of the dignity of police is by restoring public confidence in the way police exercise their powers,” he said. “[The legislation] is unnecessary and provocative. It is going to make things worse, and possibly unconstitutional.”

Andrew Shum Wai-nam of the watchdog Civil Rights Observer also said that pushing for the criminalisation of insulting police would heighten public distrust in the force. He urged the government to consider the unions’ suggestion with great caution.

“Right now the police-community relationship has sunk to a new low and is facing gridlock,” he said. “The public image of the police is also at a new low. Yesterday, many officers turned up for the rally to support the seven convicted officers – you can see they stood very firm.”

He said the pressing issue for the force management is to resolve the gridlock and restore public confidence in the police. “There is no justification for the management to continue shielding the convicted officers and to refuse to be answerable to the public,” Shum said. “This will hurt their professional image. It will be no good to them.”

- Kevin Yam and Andrew Shum want to normalize Eat Shit Sister.

(SCMP) February 23, 2017.

In a latest twist to the row over the jailing of seven policemen for assaulting an Occupy activist, the Israeli consulate has weighed in to rebuke a comparison of the tribulations of officers with the persecution of Jews.

The analogy was made by a speaker at the force’s mass gathering on Wednesday, where 33,000 serving and retired officers and their relatives came together to show support for the seven. Officers took turns taking the stage to address the crowd. One speaker was filmed comparing insults officers had received with the Nazi persecution of Jews during the second world war.

A video recorded by Chinese-language news outlet Apple Daily captured the speaker addressing the crowd, saying: “It’s like we’re now in the second world war. We are Jews facing the persecution of the Nazis, aren’t we?” The crowd then shouted “yes” in response.

A statement by the Israeli consulate said: “Without relating to the trial of the seven police officers, the alleged statement at the rally that made a reference to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany is inappropriate and regretful. We wish no further comparison will be made to the Jewish Holocaust.

In response, Joe Chan Cho-kwong, chairman of the Junior Police Officers’ Association – which was the organiser of the event – said: “The association expresses regret if any participant in Wednesday’s gathering expressed views that offended anyone, any community, or any country.”

A police spokesman said the speech did not represent the force’s position and that the force did not agree with the remarks.

- (German Consulate General Hong Kong)

Concerning the widely reported remarks of a Hong Kong police officer comparing the Hong Kong police to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, we would like to comment as follows:

The reported reference to the Holocaust shows a regrettably insufficient knowledge of historical facts.

The Jewish population in Germany was persecuted by the State and all its organs during the Nazi dictatorship and millions lost their lives.

Therefore the comparison between the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and police officers convicted for an abuse of power is utterly inappropriate.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Apparently the crowd agreeing to the one on stage for the Jews analogy has no idea what happened in WWII, has no respect to countless valuable lives lost before suffering horrible deaths in holocaust, but only to blindly boost their self-serving "morale" (instead of Virtue) which they argue is necessary for them to function effectively (and getting paid for "the job done"). This is outright humiliation, not only to the Jewish people, but also to all Hongkongers for we have a police force with a leadership unwilling to admit and apologize for the wrongdoing of their subordinates, and say and did nothing to correct their twisted and dead wrong values among the force.

- Yes, the Hong Kong Police speaker was wrong in using the Jews analogy. The Hong Kong Police are more like Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territories.

- In Hong Kong, we have freedom of speech. But that does not mean that we can exploit or distort the Holocaust. However, we are entitled to exploit, distort and even deny the Nanking massacre, Comfort women, etc. And, above all, we must not forget the 2,000+ students who were killed by People Liberation Army tanks on Tiananmen Square. So please continue to give your money to the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China so that the June 4th incident can be vindicated.

- (HKG Pao) Of course, Yellow Ribbons don't know when to stop. When the anti-Semitism campaign failed to gain momentum, four Yellow Ribbon media outlets (The Stand, HK01, 852 and InMedia) simultaneously published an essay by the blogger "Kursk" (who teaches Liberal Studies and Economics at the CNEC Lau Wing Sang Secondary School in Chai Wan) which included this paragraph:

Following the surrender of Nazi Germany, many (German) soldiers that participated in the holocaust massacre in the concentration camps never reflected much on their crimes. They felt that they were merely following orders and therefore experience no moral remorse or sense of having done anything wrong.

On Feb 22, over one thousand (actual number was over 38,000) police officers turned up to support the seven policemen, what were they thinking? Did they not also feel that the seven policemen commit no wrong?

An inquiry to the Germany Consulate General Hong Kong drew this response:

We are not yet aware of such web media articles, but any comparison between the HKPF and Nazi perpetrators of the holocaust is, of course, equally inappropriate. From all sides, resorting to Holocaust comparisons in this incident is completely out of proportion and we recommend to anyone involved in these discussions to study first what happened in the Holocaust and then carefully consider their remarks.

- As expected, the Yellow Ribbon media will only report on the first statement from the German Consulate General but not the second one. The four Yellow Ribbon media outlets which carried the article originally had no response; Apple Daily and Ming Pao were stone silent; TVB, NOW TV and Cable TV were sent the relevant materials. But all of them are silent.

- You don't get it, do you? The difference must be that the essay by Kursk is an isolated incident whereas the statement at the police rally is an institutional position.

- Kursk is a piece of turd. During the Anti-Parallel Trade demonstrations, Kursk dared to jump in to defend the rights of the mainland locust girl who was scared into crying. He deserves to lose his job for making these anti-Semitic statements.

- (HKG Pao) I wonder how many Liberal Studies teachers and students detected what was really wrong with Kursk's presentation of the 1977 police riot. The fiction was that corruption was rampant among the Hong Kong Royal Police such that Governor Sir Murray MacLehose had to establish the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The truth was that the corruption was a top-down phenomenon. At the top was Governor David Trench, who paid no attention to the alarming rise of corruption in all walks of life. The senior police officials were British, and they were the ones who made the Chinese rank-and-file police officers collect the payoffs from gambling dens, brothels, shops, hawkers, etc. When the stability of Hong Kong was at risk, Trench was sent home and MacLehose was brought in to clean up. If you want to discuss the corruption problem in 1977, the British colonial administration was a greater contributor/enabler than the Hong Kong Royal Police.

- But Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion) had no problem standing alongside Kursk. He observed that Kursk has shut down all his social media accounts due to the adverse public reaction to his comments. Therefore, Wong suggests that social activists should band together and march down to CNEC Lau Wing Sang Secondary School in Chai Wan. The specific actions there will be (1) chant slogans and show banners to support "a fellow valiant warrior in the Hong Kong War of Independence"; (2) praise Kursk as the number one theoretician/practitioner of Hong Kong Independence; (3) ask the students to donate their lunch money in order to support Freedom and Democracy.

- Wong Yeung-tat was joking. Of course. Even though Kursk has been critical of Civic Passion, Wong can't be bothered to be so petty and mean-spirited. Besides Wong is vacationing overseas right now. However, someone else has actually gone down to the school!

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 3, 2017.

Pro-Beijing group Silent Majority has been criticised after sending “reporters” into a secondary school, after one of its teachers – also a popular blogger – criticised a rally of over 30,000 police union members last month.

Several pro-democracy lawmakers have condemned Silent Majority’s “harassment” and “threats” towards the CNEC Lau Wing Sang Secondary School in Chai Wan. Principal Cheng Tak-foo told local paper Ming Pao he wished students could have a peaceful studying environment.

Teacher Edward Yau – who uses the pen name Kursk – wrote an article last Wednesday criticising the rally held in support of seven officers convicted of assaulting pro-democracy activist Ken Tsang. The condemned the force for not reflecting on its actions, and compared their actions to those of Nazi soldiers. “After Nazi Germany surrendered, many SS officers who participated in the slaughter inside concentration camps… thought that they were only obeying orders… and did not think they were wrong. The several thousand police officers who turned out in support of the ‘seven police’ – what were they thinking in the bottom of their hearts? Do they also think that the seven did no wrong?”

Ming Pao reported that, following the publication of the article, Silent Majority had sent “reporters” into Yau’s school, demanding talks with principal Cheng over the Nazi analogy. They also visited the clinic at which the school chancellor worked.

In a Facebook post on Tuesday, Silent Majority accused Yau of being scared of facing the “media,” and made a number of allegations against his school. “In his school, even the principal is ashamed of himself, and will not respond to the incident,” wrote the group. “The chancellor is too lazy to care, Lau Wing Sang secondary school might have serious governance problems.”

Principal Cheng responded to Ming Pao’s enquiries, saying that Yau spoke in a personal capacity, enjoyed freedom of speech, and that the school would not interfere. Cheng added that more than one online media outlet had approached him, but he was politically neutral, and wishes only that students would have a peaceful studying environment. Yau has since closed his Facebook and website, saying that he will not write comment pieces in the short-term.

Several pro-democracy lawmakers have since condemned Silent Majority for visiting the secondary school. Localist legislator Cheng Chung-tai criticised the group on social media on Thursday for “showing its teeth and claws” outside the school. “The group is using the incident to harass teachers and students at the school, and at the same time threatening Hong Kong’s education sector,” he wrote.

Democratic Party legislator Ted Hui added in a press release that it was extremely inappropriate to bring political battles into the classroom.

However, when approached by Ming Pao, the Education Bureau did not condemn Silent Majority. Instead, it said that society had set very high expectations for the behaviour of teachers. “Teachers need to pay attention to their words and actions,” said the bureau, “so as to give a good example to the next generation.”

The Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union called the bureau’s response “disappointing.” “The Education Bureau should take responsibility for protecting those in the classroom from being harassed by external organisations,” said the union in a statement on Thursday. Its reckless questioning of a teacher’s speech and actions shows that it is incapable of protecting the rights of frontline teachers.”

- (Hong Kong Free Press) End of a Hong Kong blogger: Time to say goodbye to freedom of speech? By Tim Hamlett. April 9, 2017.

Consider two contrasting cases.

In August 1997 a Legislative Councillor of the pro-government persuasion took issue with two columnists who had disagreed with him. Both of them had day jobs at local universities so he wrote to the two universities urging that the two men concerned should be fired. When this became widely known it was made clear to him, even by fellow pillars of the establishment, that this sort of thing was not acceptable. He apologised.

One of the academics, who happened to be a distinguished visitor from America, returned home. The other, who happened to be me, continued to write columns unmolested.

Compare this with the case of Mr Edward Yau. Mr Yau used to write a blog on his own Facebook page, and also occasionally contributed pieces to the media under the pen-name Kursk. Many of these contributions were to Apple Daily or the HK01 website, so we may take it that Mr Yau is of a progressive disposition.

On the day after the Great Police Rally Mr Yau wrote a commentary on the matter, suggesting that the orator at the rally who had mentioned Nazi Germany had made a poor choice of analogy, and one might wonder whether policemen who gassed or beat demonstrators believed that they were “only following orders,” a defence once popular with retired SS men.

This was perhaps controversial, but hardly off the piste for acceptable public discussion. Supporters of the police could not really complain of rhetorical overkill after their own hero had compared peaceful demonstrators to Nazi death squads. I seem to remember writing something rather similar myself.

However Mr Yau was unlucky enough to be selected as a target by the Silent Majority, a downmarket pro-Beijing group, proprietor Mr Robert (“They could kill this city”) Chow Yung. The SM criticised Mr Yau on their website, as they were perfectly entitled to do.

However as the Silent Majority are widely regarded as a bunch of dimwitted paid puppets this no doubt did not have the desired effect on public opinion. So they decided to go after Mr Yau personally.

It happens that Mr Yau in his day job is a teacher at a secondary school in Chaiwan. So the SM people tried to contact the principal, clearly in the hope that he would give Mr Yau a hard time. The principal did not return their calls, so a troop of SM people then turned up at the school, claiming to be reporters, and demanded an interview. Drawing a blank with the principal, they then turned up at the clinic of the school’s supervisor, and tried to interrogate him. Other members of the school’s board of governors have reportedly also been harassed.

Mr Yau has now decided to give up blogging “to protect the people he loves.” He will in future concentrate on writing for Catholic publications. He said he had not had any pressure from the school. The principal reportedly said that what his staff said in their personal capacity as bloggers was their business alone, and the school would not interfere. He also said he would like some peace and quiet.

This, actually, is what gives actions of this kind their chilling effect. Somebody who has a day job and writes part-time will wonder, even if his employer says the right thing, as Mr Yau’s did and mine did, whether he ought to continue to expose his colleagues and students to harassment and possible violence.

This is a shameful episode. The Education Bureau, however, did not think so. Its reported comment was that society set high expectations for the behaviour of teachers, and “teachers need to be responsible for their words and actions.”

This was eerily similar to an unrepentant comment from the Silent Majority on Sunday, which said that “events prove that a person cannot escape responsibility for his words and actions.” Which leaves you wondering who was inspiring who here.

The SM also said that “their visits to Yau’s school were not threatening in nature, and they can be described as just the actions of concerned citizens.” No they can’t. Ordinary concerned citizens do not turn up at the workplace of a blogger and demand to interview his employer, masquerading as reporters. Clearly the people who turned up at the school were not reporters. So they were liars.

The SM went on to criticise sections of the media for publishing “slanderous” accounts of its activities. A little legal knowledge required here. If it’s in the media it’s libel, not slander.

While we are on the law let us also visit the Basic Law, which says that Hong Kong people enjoy freedom of speech, and the Bill of Rights Ordinance Article 16, which goes into some detail about the permitted limits of such freedom. Exceptions may only be “such as provided by law.”

There is no law which says that perpetrators of opinions deemed “malicious thoughts” by “concerned citizens” may be subjected to having a band of goons visit their employer masquerading as reporters. I infer that the actions of the SM were a clear breach of the rights accorded by law to Hong Kong citizens. This thought has apparently not occurred to relevant parts of our government, which is ominous.

It was nice having freedom of speech. Is it now time to say goodbye?

- (HKG Pao)

This sounds as if a gang of thugs went down and smashed up the school. But let us go over exactly what happened. Our reporter called the school and asked for an interview. We never got to see Teacher Yau. The closest person we were ever able to approach was the school's security guard. Did we 'kill' anyone as the Apple Daily/Ming Pao headlines suggest? We might have swatted a mosquito while we waited in vain outside.

The Ming Pao editor came up with the story headline of "Teacher wrote essay to criticize police assembly; Silentmajority.hk went down to to the school to raise questions." This is thoroughly misleading, because the issue is not whether the teacher criticized the police assembly; the issue was that the teacher said that the police and their families were unremorseful Nazi soldiers who slaughtered the Jews.

The Apple Daily editor came up with the story headline of "Cultural Revolution here? Silentmajority.hk comes in for the kill; Kursk quits writing." How does the Cultural Revolution come in? Where the hell was Apple Daily when the Yellow Ribbon Media went down to Alpais Lam's school and harassed the staff? Wasn't that when the Cultural Revolution was started?

P.S. Apple Daily/Ming Pao have still not reported on the German Consulate General's reactions on Kursk's remarks about unremorseful Nazi soldiers = the Hong Kong Police.

- (EJ Insight) April 3, 2017.

Edward Yau, a local school teacher who blogs under the pen name Kursk, has decided to stop writing political commentaries following attacks and harassment by pro-establishment groups.

The popular blogger said over the weekend that he will no longer publish articles on sensitive topics as he wants to “protect the people he loves”.

Although the announcement was made on Saturday, which led to some people speculating that it might be an April Fool’s Day prank, it now seems that the decision is for real.

On April 1, Yau uploaded a “black picture” on to the Kursk Facebook page along with the caption “good night and good luck”.

In an accompanying post, he informed his fans that he will henceforth write articles only for Catholic publications and that he will no longer use the online platform to express political views.

Yau, who has a day job as a liberal studies teacher at a secondary school, said in the message that he had tried everything in the past decade and that he would like to thank all who supported him.

The blogger didn’t go into detail as to what exactly made him opt out of political commentaries, but the decision came after he drew a lot of flak over a critical article on the police, news website HK01.com noted. 

In a recent article, Yau slammed police officers for organizing a rally in support of seven cops who were jailed by a local court for beating up a democracy activist during the 2014 Occupy campaign.

After the commentary was published, pro-establishment circles began attacking Yau, and one pro-Beijing group in particular — Silent Majority — even sent some people to the CNEC Lau Wing Sang Secondary School in Chai Wan where Yau teaches.

At the school, the Silent Majority representatives demanded a meeting with the principal and also contacted other members of the school board to voice their strong objections to Yau’s views. 

Following the harassment and abuse, Yau has now decided to stop writing political pieces, saying he wants to take a break.

He told Ming Pao Daily that he was not under any pressure from his school, but that he felt obliged to do something as the school’s name was being dragged into media glare and students were facing some nuisance.

Asked whether the events can be described as “white terror”, Yau said he would not want to pin such label. In other comments, Yau said his decision to stop writing should not prompt others from doing the same.

Silent Majority recently published on its website more than six articles that were critical of Kursk, warning that his school and colleagues must not harbor a person who spreads malicious thoughts. The pro-Beijing group said on Sunday that events prove that a person cannot escape responsibility for his words or actions.

They stressed that their visits to Yau’s school were not threatening in nature, and that they can be described as just the action of concerned citizens. They also lashed out at sections of the media for publishing “slanderous” accounts of the group’s actions.

Following the latest news on Yau, Ip Kin-yuen, a lawmaker who represents the education functional constituency, said he is worried that teachers who express views critical of authorities are coming under increasing pressure. 

- (HKG Pao) April 3, 2017.

In the first Ming Pao interview, Edward Yau said that Silentmajority.hk politically harassed the students. In the second Ming Pao interview, he did not say directly that this was a case of White Terror, but he said that he would let everybody decide for themselves. "I won't choose to use the term White Terror. I have no comment on whether this is White Terror."

Over the past several days, Silentmajority.hk have been calling the CNEC Lau Wing Sang Secondary School to get a telephone interview with Edward Yau. He refused many times to take the telephone. What else can we do but to show up in person?

When the Silentmajority.hk reporter went to the school, they did not interview any parents and students for their views. They only wanted to interview Edward Yau and principal Cheng Tak-fu. Both persons sent out workers to say that an appointment is needed, or that there is no available time. The Silentmajority.hk had to seek out school supervisor Dr. To Yan-hin for comments. To declined the request, saying that he knows nothing about the matter.

Actually, all Silentmajority.hk wants is some kind of response. Why won't they hold a direct conversation? Is it really so difficult? Oddly enough, after Kursk refused our request for an interview, he went ahead to be interviewed by Ming Pao. So it is not the case that he doesn't have the time -- it is that he wants to control the message to his liking.

So if Silentmajority.hk did not disturb the school students, parents and staff, why is Kursk saying that he is going to stop writing "in order to protect those he loves"? Is this supposed to be White Terror?

- (SCMP) Pundits can’t always get it right. By Alex Lo. April 6, 2017.

If you can’t stand the heat, don’t go into the kitchen. In this day and age, if you write about controversial political topics, you can expect to draw some serious flak. Yours truly speaks from long experience in that regard.

So I am somewhat sympathetic when blogger and liberal studies teacher Edward Yau declares he has thrown in the towel after being hounded by “blue ribbon” groups like the Silent Majority, for comparing the Hong Kong police to Nazis.

He told his disappointed fans that he would, from now on, only write for Catholic publications and that he would no longer express political views online.

In a sense, he brought all this on himself. You want the proverbial faeces to hit the fan, just compare someone or some group to Hitler and the Nazis. And he made the ill-advised comment after a policeman had already offended many by comparing his colleagues to persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany at a police rally in February.

The chastised officer was likely to be insufficiently educated. You can’t say the same of Yau, who of all things, actually teaches liberal studies. When you compare thousands of police officers to the “many SS officers who participated in the slaughter inside concentration camps”, you deserve some harsh criticism. Whatever you think of our police, it’s a terrible comparison. It raises questions about your suitability as a teacher.

However, I do think it was a bit much that the Silent Majority people approached the principal of Yau’s school to raise the issue. Given the widespread reporting of the controversy, his bosses must have been well aware. If they had wanted to take action – or not – it should be entirely up to the school, rather than because of outside pressure from a political group.

But Yau was quite fair, and declined to describe the pressure and criticism against him as “white terror”, though he was invited by some reporters from the “liberal” press to apply the label. It appears Yau has learned a lesson and should be the wiser for it.

Obviously, Yau and I are at opposite ends of the political divide. But as a fellow commentator with a following, I don’t think he should only write for religious publications. We all make mistakes. He should press on and not shy from controversies. Just be more careful next time.

- (HKG Pao) Legislator Nathan Law (Demosisto) accused HKG Pao of "misleading the public to change the Germany Consulate General's statement about the comparison with the Jewish victims of the Holocaust with the Hong Kong Police into a condemnation of 'Yellow Media.' This is exactly what we have come to expect of Global Thinker Nathan Law, who did not bother to read carefully and mixed two incidents into one. And when he is caught in the act again, he is going to delete the post and pretend as if nothing ever happened.

- Alpais Lam wrote that "I hope that someone would start an action to lay siege to the Department of Education to demand that they severely deal with Loving Hong Kong harassing the school (CNEC Lau Wing Sang Secondary School) and attacking the freedom of speech of teachers outside school. If nobody does that within the next two days, I will lead the way. Please tag all the Legislative Councilors, citizens and teachers." Two days later, she wrote: "Due to the lack of teacher representatives, this is over. Forget it."

- Who is going out there to defend the inalienable freedom of school teachers to say that the Hong Kong Police are Nazi Sturmtruppen?

- (SCMP) Apples and oranges: how historical analogies can backfire. By Alex Lo. February 28, 2017.

If you want to have a sensible discussion about most things, try to avoid making comparisons, or drawing analogies, with the Nazis, Adolf Hitler or the Holocaust. To do so will immediately kill the conversation; all hell is guaranteed to break loose.

There is even something called Godwin’s law – or Godwin’s rule of Hitler analogies – to describe this destructive phenomenon.

Unfortunately, that was exactly what happened when a hapless police officer compared the plight of his colleagues to the Nazi persecution of the Jews during a mass gathering by current and retired officers and their families. Understandably, both the Israeli and German consulates felt duty-bound to respond.

The officer in question had displayed profound cultural insensitivity and historical ignorance. But there is absolutely no reason to think it was done out of malice or prejudice.

The same cannot be said of a liberal studies teacher. In a commentary run by several news outlets, the teacher indirectly compared participants of the mass gathering in support of seven jailed policemen to Nazi soldiers. This prompted a second response from the German consulate.

Comparing Hong Kong police to the Nazis is arguably even more outlandish, and the teacher could hardly claim ignorance. One wonders whether the same teacher is morally or intellectually fit to teach liberal studies.

But of course, none of these – the malicious teacher, the ignorant police officer – would have mattered, except for the news outlets that published the commentary or reported his speech. While they stayed in the background, their pan-democratic links made their motive pretty transparent: to discredit the police force and its mass gathering last week.

Localists, secessionists and many radical pan-democrats have come to view the police as the enemy, and last week’s mass rally practically as a declaration of war. That’s why they and their media allies are trying to drag out this sorry row for as long as possible.

Let’s leave our German and Israeli friends alone, and drop this sorry saga once and for all.

Hong Kong has many problems. The police force has problems. But none of them will be resolved or elucidated by citing Nazi history.

By all means study it as being essential to the education of every person. But being educated also means not drawing false analogies or unwarranted lessons from history.

- (SCMP) Hong Kong’s ‘hypocrisy camp’ has had its way for too long. By Michael Chugani. February 28, 2017.

You’re wrong if you think only the so-called opposition and loyalist camps influence our politics. A third camp lurks. Its job is to fool some of the people all of the time. It does this through fake news, alternative facts, and double standards. An offshoot of the opposition, it is best described as the hypocrisy camp.

It moved swiftly last week after 38,000 police officers and their families massed to support seven colleagues jailed for beating a protestor who had splashed foul-smelling liquid on them. The hypocrisy camp dubbed the rally an illegal assembly. An illegal assembly? These same hypocrites were part of the Occupy protest. What’s more illegal – tens of thousands occupying the streets for 79 days or 38,000 in a private stadium who inconvenienced no one?

Ah yes, but Occupy was civil disobedience, a noble cause. If it was civil disobedience why contest prosecution as the few charged so far have done? Doesn’t civil disobedience require participants to acknowledge guilt and accept the consequences, as Gandhi did? But let’s not mention the phonies and Gandhi in the same breath.

Hypocrisy camp leaders milked the gaffe of one policeman who emotionally likened Hong Kong’s cops to persecuted Jews during the Nazi era but stayed mute when one of their own, a liberal studies teacher, likened the 38,000 at the rally to Nazi soldiers. What’s worse – one out of 38,000 making a gaffe or someone who condemns all 38,000 as Nazis?

If dragging the Holocaust into our politics is wrong, why did these hypocrites not only fail to condemn but actually defend the free speech of the Youngspiration pair who used “Cheena” – a wartime slur against China by the Japanese who had massacred tens of thousands of Chinese? If free speech is so sacred, why did these phonies condemn former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa for simply saying at a private function Beijing had the constitutional right not to appoint a chief executive?

Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po became the latest victim of these hypocrites who spread the fake news that he was lavishing millions of taxpayer dollars to turn his official residence – recently vacated by John Tsang Chun-wah – into a luxurious home. The fact is only HK$830,000 would be spent on basic repairs after a decade of neglect.

The hypocrisy camp has had its way for too long. Not anymore. I intend to call them out each and every time.

- (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin.

I have increasingly come to believe in the saying: "When things go to one extreme, they will swing back in the other direction." Democracy is a good thing and freedom is a good thing. But taken to the extreme, democracy and freedom are surely not so good. Here are some examples.

Example 1: The opposition says that the Central Government is manipulating the Chief Executive election by anointing a candidate. Therefore they vetoed universal suffrage so that the people of Hong Kong cannot have one-person-one-vote. Then they do their best to get into the Election Committee and vote en bloc as kingmakers. They explain that their 326 votes are not enough to win. That is true, but their 326 votes were enough to make sure that some people (such as Leung Kwok-hung) cannot even enter the race. Manipulation does not mean just working to let someone win; it can also mean making someone lose or even win ugly. From ThunderGo to the Chief Executive election, isn't this what they have been doing? And if the Central Government anointed Carrie Lam, then the opposition has anointed John Tsang. Thus, democracy taken to the extreme is just another form of manipulation.

Example 2: The Hong Kong Police held a special membership meeting last Wednesday with almost 40,000 persons in attendance. The opposition said that this was an unlawful gathering and they want the Police Commissioner to investigate. If a private members-only meeting is unlawful, then what about the anti-National Education protests, Occupy Central, the siege of Government Headquarters, the siege of the China Liaison Office ... those public events must surely be unlawful? So before they wag their fingers at others, can they please stand out themselves and proclaim: "We have been holding unlawful gatherings all these years."

Example 3: The one obscene shout from one policeman became the target of criticism. I am reminded of another scene: Several years ago, teacher Alpais Lam used an obscene phrase against a police officer. At the time, many people jumped out in her defense. They cited classical books to trace the etymology of obscene phrases to antiquity and explain how obscene phrases are such a precious part of local culture. I wonder where have all these people gone now? Why don't they cite the same literature to praise this policeman?

Example 4: A Liberal Studies teacher Yau Siu-lun (Kursk) wrote an essay in which he compared the Hong Kong Police to Nazi soldiers. So a reporter went to the secondary school where he teaches to see how his students are being taught. This is just routine news gathering, but this has been decried as "Cultural Revolution," "persecution" and "suppression of freedom of speech." I am curious that if interviewing a teacher is Cultural Revolution-style persecution, then what about the reporters who hounded the principal who introduced National Education in his school? Or the relentless tailing of Mrs. Donald Tsang, who has not been charged with any wrongdoing? Or the paparazzi who were sent to follow CY Leung's daughter around on the Stanford University campus?

- Legislator Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion) wrote an open letter to the German Consul General in Hong Kong. Internet users wondered how Cheung ever got a doctorate given his very poor command of English, which is a required second language in most PhD programs. All this reflects poorly on Peking University (Beijing University) where Cheng got his PhD.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) February 28, 2017.

In a new statement on Tuesday, the German Consulate General thanked the Association for its words. “We are very well aware that those comments were made by an individual and in no way reflect the opinion of the [Hong Kong Police Force] in general. We would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the good relations between our two offices,” it said.

(Hong Kong Free Press) After staging a ludicrous rally in support of criminals, the police now think they should be above the law. By Richard Scotford. February 23, 2017.

We certainly live in crazy times. One would have thought that the recent jailing of seven police officers for beating up a hog-tied detainee for all the world to see would be something everyone would want to put behind them. But no. Not the Hong Kong Police Force. In a show of force, not seen since 1977, when they objected to the ICAC investigating corruption within their ranks, they filled a football pitch full of supporters.

Dressed in white, as though someone had died, they chanted that they would fight for justice. They compared themselves to Jews in World War II and declared they would lobby for a new ‘contempt of cop’ law, to stop people insulting them. They claimed it was time to claw back their dignity, but conversely, it left many in Hong Kong shocked at what they were witnessing. Could it be true that so many people, charged with maintaining the law misunderstand our legal system and their responsibilities so profoundly? Or as one netizen remarked: “These people have just staged a farce for the civilized world!”

The Police General Orders prohibit the police from engaging in political rallies. And in a shameless attempt to pretend the event was not, the media were not allowed into the venue, even though there were politicians on stage, speeches, dress codes and chanting. The meeting was a political rally by anyone’s measure, other than the police’s own proclamation.

Some officers who spoke to the press rambled about supporting the families of the officers in prison. Or they said that the deed was wrong, but the sentence was too high. Both of these ideas make no sense and fly in the face of what one should expect from a supposedly, professional, disciplined Police Force, untainted by corrupt thinking.

Judges don’t just pull sentences out of thin air. They base them on strict, prescriptive guidelines with precedents gathered over time. Where the rule of law exists, everyone is equal in front of the law, even the police – and the reality is, this is what the thousands of police found so unpalatable, just like in 1977. Deep down they think that the law shouldn’t apply to them. And, if it does, it should be lenient because of the sacrifices they think they’re making. The law is not, as many of the protesting police seem to believe, a comparative exercise in values and beliefs that can be applied selectively and politically. It most certainly is in China, but not in Hong Kong, yet.

The fact that the officers received the heaviest sentence out of everyone who was involved in the 2014 Occupy reflects the serious nature of their actions. The sentences cannot be mitigated downwards because others received lighter sentences for smaller infractions. The seven officers who went to prison are criminals; this is not a matter of opinion, it’s a legal fact. And if a Police Force, en masse, supports criminals then the public’s confidence in them will plummet.

A disciplined Police Force does not have the luxury of nuance on such matters if it wants to maintain any semblance of integrity across society. In 1977, the police had little credibility with large swathes of the public because they had lost sight of what their role in society was. Likewise, 40 years later, Hong Kong’s Police Force has become highly politicized, and their rally was the culmination of them struggling to understand why they could have been treated so badly by the courts when they have served one faction of society so diligently.

Wednesday’s police rally will be marked in history as the coming-out of The Force as a self-serving, factional block in Hong Kong politics, with their own demands and expectations. Like a spoilt, petulant child, not content with having an astronomical budget to buy anything they desire: HK$18.5 billion. They will now begin to apply political pressure, through their proxies in the legislature, to push for a contempt of cop law to make them infallible. We should all fear such a law. It’s already been made very clear that our Police Force rejects that it should be confined by its own regulations or the courts. How much more audacious do you think they will become when they are above criticism?

- "Judges don’t just pull sentences out of thin air. They base them on strict, prescriptive guidelines with precedents gathered over time. Where the rule of law exists, everyone is equal in front of the law, even the police."

Here are a few goodies from the judges on just this day that provide amusement for Hong Kong Internet users.

- (Oriental Daily) A male teacher at a Tung Chung elementary school was mad at a 10-year-old male student with reading/writing disability for not handing in homework. He grabbed the boy's neck and squeezed his body until the boy cried out in pain. The parents of the boy called the police. Today, the male teacher was found guilty of two counts of common assault. The magistrate said that there were letters from the former and current school principals, teachers and students testifying that the teacher is a rare education talent. Therefore she sentenced the teacher to 80 hours of community service and wished him a great future in teaching.

- (Oriental Daily) 50-year-old unemployed mentally ill man Lam Siu-yip assaulted an 80-year-old fellow patient at the Kowloon Hospital Psychiatric Ward. Lam was charged with manslaughter. At the time, Lam told the nurse that he had committed assault. The defense argued that the statement was ambiguous and does not amount to a confession. The prosecutor agreed. The judge said that in the absence of further details, Lam may have been hallucinating at the time. The prosecutor said that no further evidence will be offered. As a result, the judge nullified the charge.

- (Oriental Daily) 55-year-old security guard Chan Hon-fu walked into the Hang Seng Bank in Cheung Kwan O, smashed two bottles of paint thinner and held up two knives to stage a robbery. The bank called the police who arrested Chan. Today, Chan was sentenced to 3 years 4 months in jail. In 1999, Chan lost his job and attempted suicide. He was diagnosed to suffer from mental depression. In 2004, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. But since the medication caused insomnia and listlessness, he decided to cut down the intake on his own. Two psychiatrists recommended that Chan be hospitalized. But the judge said that this was out of the question because robbery is a serious crime. The judge said that because Chan threw the paint thinner and wielded two knives at the bank tellers, the starting point would be 7 years in jail. Because Chan was mentally ill, the sentenced was reduced to 5 years. Because Chan pleaded guilty, the sentence was further reduced by 1/3. Therefore the final sentence was 3 years 4 months.

- (Oriental Daily) In 2013, the appellant Lo Sing-lok was caught with 1 kilogram of cocaine. Lo claimed that his friend asked him to hold a bag in which there was a photo album. He did not suspect that the photo album contained drugs. Lo was arrested. He claimed that the police dragged him into the restroom, assaulted him and told him to give a statement according to their instructions. He was taken down to Police Headquarters where he was assaulted again. He was then taken to a room in which a videotaped statement was made.

During the trial, the presiding judge told the jury that Lo's statements were not credible: "How can this be possible?" and "Can everything be coincidental?" Lo was sentenced to 21-1/2 years in jail. Lo filed an appeal. Yesterday the Court of Appeal ruled that the judge had misled the jury, not only in how he discussed the evidence but also for using a derogatory tone which was prejudicial and unfair. Therefore, a retrial has been ordered.

By the way, the presiding judge was Woo Kwok-hing, currently running to become the Chief Executive on the basis of his vast experience as a judge.

- (Oriental Daily) [This trial is ongoing, but people can't wait to read the verdict/sentence.] 50-year-old married taxi driver Lee Kwok-ming got back together with his mistress and began to sexually molest her two daughters. He forcibly kissed the 12-year-old (X). He coerced the 17-year-old (Y) into sexual intercourse many times in order to complete a Taoist religious ritual to save her younger sister. The court was shown a number of mobile phone messages to Y: "You and I are destined to be together," "You and I are lovers in our previous lives," "Y loves me, but she could not break open the shackles of morality", "The Chinese government was behind the Cambodian mass murderer Pol Pot; if there is a guided missile that can destroy China, I would press the button", "I don't have any political positions, but I support freedom and democracy and I attend the June 4th assembly." Lee asked if Y would marry him. Y replied "How is that possible?" She told him that she does not want to have sexual intercourse with him again.

In court, Y testified that Lee once showed up with two wooden sticks. Lee said that these were Filipino magic wands. Lee hit himself on the own chest six times and said that this was because Y told her boyfriend that Lee has magical powers. Y said that "Lee did not make any noise as he hit himself; he rolled his eyes and looked as if he was about to throw up." Y said that there was a time when X, Y, her mother and Lee sat naked on the living room floor to say prayers. Y wanted to object, but her mother forced X and Y to obey.

- (Oriental Daily) Open University student Yuan Ka-chun worked as a part-time dance instructor. On this day, he asked six students to play the game Miss Fox. He told five of them to close their eyes, and then he allegedly exposed his penis to the sixth girl who was six years old. He allegedly asked the girl to caress his penis. Afterwards the girl told her parents that the teacher "took out a piece". Today the magistrate found Yuan not guilty of committing an indecent act against a child under the age of 16.

The magistrate ruled the defendant was completely untrustworthy in his testimony. On one hand, the defendant said that he avoided bodily contact with the students at all times. On the other hand, he admitted that he patted the victim's head during the game. Therefore the magistrate said that the testimony of the defendant was a pack of lies. The magistrate believed that the victim was trustworthy. However, in her testimony, she admitted that she was unsure whether the object that she touched was the penis of the defendant. The magistrate gave the benefit of doubt to the defendant and found him not guilty.

- (HKG Pao) Recently a magistrate said during the trial of a male nurse assaulting a patient: "Nobody would ever think that they could be attacked by the medical staff at a hospital." He was made fun of because he was stating the obvious.

Along came a series of imitation statements along the lines of "Nobody would ever think that the dog would eat the homework." Sensing a good opportunity, Yau Wai-ching jumped in and said: "At the same time, nobody would ever think that they could be attacked by the police." She was trying to take a dig the seven policemen but somehow she found herself the target of a string of scathing statements:

"Nobody would ever think that ex-legislators would be so fucking stupid."

"Nobody would ever think of not paying back the money that they owe."

"Nobody would ever think that there would be consequences with playing word games during the Legislative Council oath of office."

"Nobody would ever think that if they threw a brick at the police, the police would fight back."

"Nobody would ever think that you actually need a brain in order to think." (Corollary: "If you have a brain, you wouldn't have gotten yourself disqualified").

- (Headline Daily) June 6, 2017. Previously 34-year-old dart bar boss  Lee Yun-kin was found guilty in High Court of sexual assault of a 22-year female customer after lacing her drink with drugs. He was sentenced to 240 hours of community service, with the judge noting that he was an entrepreneur whose career should not be destroyed. The Department of Justice appealed. Today, the High Court of Appeal judge sentenced Lee to 2 years instead.

- (info.gov.hk) December 11, 2013.

Following is a question by the Hon Mrs Regina Ip and a written reply by the Secretary for the Civil Service, Mr Paul Tang, in the Legislative Council today (December 11):

Question:

Quite a number of public officers have relayed to me that while on duty, they are often provoked by some members of the public using abusive language or obscene gestures. As there is no specific provision under the existing legislation criminalising the act of insulting public officers on duty, they can only put up with such behaviour in silence, which has aroused negative emotions and resulted in very low morale among them. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the respective numbers of cases in the past five years in which the authorities invoked section 23 of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232) and section 36 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212) to institute prosecutions against persons who had resisted or obstructed a public officer or police officer in the execution of duty; and among such cases, the number of convictions; and among the conviction cases, the number of those involving defendants who insulted public officers or police officers with abusive language or behaviour;

(b) given that there is an offence of "insult" under the Penal Code of Macao, and the penalty will be heavier if a public officer in execution of duty is the subject of an insult (i.e. "aggravated insult"), whether the authorities will make reference to such legal provisions and study the introduction of legislation to prohibit any act of insulting public officers on duty; if they will not, of the reasons for that;

(c) given that it is currently stipulated in section 139 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) that "any person who wilfully obstructs, resists, or uses abusive language to, any person acting in the execution of his duties under [this] Ordinance, or under any order or warrant made or issued thereunder, shall, in any case for which no other provision is made by [this] Ordinance, be guilty of an offence", whether the authorities will consider using this provision as a blueprint and enacting legislation to prohibit the use of abusive language to other public officers on duty; if they will not, of the reasons for that; and

(d) of the training, emotional counselling and support currently provided for frontline public officers in handling situations of being insulted while on duty?

Reply:

President,

(a) The numbers of prosecutions and convictions under section 23 of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232) and section 36 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212) from 2008 to 2012 are set out in the Annex.

We do not maintain statistics on the number of cases where public officers were verbally or behaviourally insulted by the accused.

(b)and(c) Under the existing laws of Hong Kong, the mere act of verbally abusing or insulting another person or a public officer does not normally constitute an offence. However, if a person, in the course of verbally abusing or insulting another person or a public officer, goes further to commit certain crimes, such as using threatening, abusive or insulting words against a public officer with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be caused, the authorities may consider invoking section 17B(2) (Disorder in public places) of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245) to take action against him/her. In addition, if anyone threatens a public officer with any injury to the person, reputation or property of such public officer, with intent to alarm such officer; assaults a public officer; damages any public property; or resists or obstructs a public officer in the performance of his/her public duty, the relevant departments may, depend on the circumstances of the case, consider invoking the following legislation to take action against him/her:

i. section 24 (Certain acts of intimidation prohibited) or section 60 (Destroying or damaging property), Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200); or

ii. section 36 (Assault with intent to commit offence, or on police officer, etc.), section 39 (Assault occasioning actual bodily harm) or section 40 (Common assault), Offences against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212); or

iii. section 63 (Penalty on person assaulting, etc. police officer in execution of duty, or misleading officer by false information), Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232); or

iv. section 23 (Resisting or obstructing a public officer or other person lawfully engaged in a public duty), Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), etc.

As a matter of course, in determining whether prosecution should be initiated, the authorities should consider the actual circumstances of each case, including the behaviour of the offender and the relevant legislative requirements. We consider that public officers are adequately protected under the existing laws and it is not necessary to enact separate legislation. While we have no plan at the moment to legislate separately against the act of insulting public officers, we will keep the situation in view.

(d) Civil servants are to serve the community and are committed to carrying out their duties with professionalism and efficiency. They should not be subject to abusive and insulting language. We appeal to members of the public to appreciate and respect our colleagues as they discharge their duties impartially and lawfully. The Civil Service Bureau (CSB) will continue to take measures to alleviate stress experienced by colleagues, including the provision of a safe workplace, training courses and hotline counselling service. These will help them handle conflicts, manage stress and maintain emotional well-being for coping with the challenges in their work. Currently, more than 3 000 colleagues attend relevant training courses organised by the Civil Service Training and Development Institute each year. As regards the stress management hotline provided by the CSB, the service includes telephone and face-to-face counselling, referral to appropriate bodies for follow-up, and the provision of relevant thematic seminars. Many departments are also providing suitable counselling services having regard to their operational situation. Furthermore, we will continue to promote the civil service commendation schemes, which give recognition to colleagues with outstanding and dedicated performance, with a view to bringing the message across to the public that civil servants are serving the community with professionalism and impartiality and should deserve respect.

- Sample video of insulting the police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i75dsuk0bY

- (Oriental Daily with video) February 25, 2017.

On the night of February 20, a western tourist and his Hong Kong girl friend were trying to flag down a taxi outside the Sogo Department Store on Hennessey Road, Causeway Bay district. The location is a restricted zone where taxi pick-ups are not allowed. A traffic officer proceeded to tell the two to go to the taxi stand nearby instead. But the man proceeded to curse out the traffic officer in English with lots of obscene language. The man even lifted the cap off the traffic officer. At this time, a Hongkonger who was using a cane due to a foot injury came over and asked the traffic police whether he needed help to call the police station for assistance. This Hongkonger also told the western tourist and his Hong Kong girlfriend that this is a restricted zone in which taxis cannot pick up passengers. But Hong Kong woman laughed at his cane and even said: "I'll break both your legs first!" She also asked him whether he is permanently disabled.

- The Junior Police Officers' Association wants to enact legislation that criminalizes the insulting of police officers. Alan Leong (Civic Party) responded that if the police want the citizens to respect them, then they need to enforce the law professionally and fairly -- criminalizing insults won't make the citizens respect you otherwise.

- I am completely in agreement with the argument made by Alan Leong. At this time, there seems to be a prevalent disrespect for the judges/magistrates and their verdicts. Following Alan Leong's excellent advice, let us remove the "contempt of court" and "insulting judges" ordinances, so that judges/magistrates can see if public opinion supports their rulings. After all, as Alan Leong has powerfully argued, criminalizing criticisms won't make the citizens respect you anyway.

- (Apple Daily) Legislator James To (Democratic Party) said: "If you criminalize the insulting of the police, it will lead to even greater social rifts. People are going to be upset that the insulting of the police is criminalized but the insulting of regular citizens is not. I don't think that this is good for the police."

- Yes, I completely agree too. Right now, regular citizens are upset that the insulting of judges is criminalized as contempt of court but the insulting of everybody else (including God, Mohammed, Buddha, Xi Jinping, Donald Trump, CY Leung, racial/ethnic minorities, physically disabled/handicapped persons, children, senior citizens, dogs, pigs, snakes, rats, etc) is not. I don't think that this is good for the  judges.

- Basic Law Article 25: All Hong Kong residents shall be equal before the law.

Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. [A proclamation by the pigs who control the government in the novel Animal Farm, by George Orwell. The sentence is a comment on the hypocrisy of governments that proclaim the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite.]

Corollary: The animals who enact the laws can make themselves more equal than others.

- (SCMP) The grievances of our police must be heard if we want an effective force. By Alex Lo. February 25, 2017.

Whatever is your take on the jailing of seven policemen for their part in beating an Occupy protest leader, the unprecedented demonstration this week of 33,000 serving and former officers and their families should be a serious cause for concern.

At a time when social discontent is rising and violent protests are becoming increasingly common, an efficient and disciplined police force is often our last resort.

But widespread frustration and falling morale will only make our officers less productive and more unprofessional. That’s why their sense of grievance against the jailing of their colleagues needs to be properly addressed, not just dismissed or criticised.

More and more young activists and radicals feel they can shout at, and even physically confront, the police with little or no consequence.

Certainly the lenient treatment those Occupy protesters and Mong Kok rioters have received from the courts have given them a sense of impunity.

This feeling of entitlement has been taken to an absurd extreme by people like Ken Tsang Kin-chiu, the seasoned provocateur who was roughed up by the seven officers.

With no evidence, Tsang claimed his case was just the tip of the iceberg and that the police chief should apologise to the public for his beating. But, he himself was hardly the innocent victim, having been jailed for five weeks for assaulting police officers and resisting arrest. He is on bail and has launched an appeal.

The massive show of support in this week’s demonstration by the police should put these arrogant and self-righteous people on notice.

They should know that even a highly trained and professional force like the city’s police have a breaking point.

Increasingly, police officers feel they are being targeted or criticised for whatever they do or don’t do. They think they are in a no-win situation, and can only take the abuses as they come without recourse.

That’s the main reason why some are agitating for criminalising abusive behaviour against police.

Far from being wrong in showing support for his force, police chief Stephen Lo Wai-chung is actually not doing enough. He must show he is 100 per cent behind his officers; likewise, the chief executive and the secretary for security.

If we want a professional and competent police force, they must know they have the full support of law-abiding citizens.

- (Hong Kong Economic Times) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. February 27, 2017.

... I was there that night. I was told that 39,051 persons attended. Because this was a special membership meeting, there was only an internal notice and no open publicity. As people entered, their membership ID's were checked. Since people were counted one by one, the number is very accurate, unlike those assemblies at Victoria Park or Government Headquarters with huge pre-publicity and hugely inflated attendance figures. Frankly, it was very real and scary to see almost 40,000 people united together.

Even more scary was that the positive reaction of society. It was announced that a foundation was founded. Within days, more than $10 million in donations have poured in. The silent citizens are using their money to show their support. This is a silent demonstration.

Over the past several days, the opposition has tried to find fault. Here is my catalog of vitriolic attacks:

1. Obscene language.

One member said "Fuck your mother" on stage to show what they have to listen to every day. The Yellow Media immediately characterized the event as "10,000 people came to chant obscenities". After being circulated back and forth, everybody thinks that 40,000 chanted obscenities in unison.

2. Jews

One member compared the police with the Jews. The Yellow Media immediately lodged complaints with the Israeli and German Consulate Generals and turn this into an international affair. Then they called the event an international disgrace.

3. Unlawful assembly

Legislators Nathan Law and Chu Hoi Dick wrote to the Panel on Security at the Legislative Council to say that this membership assembly violated the police rules on unlawful gathering. Hong Kong University Faculty of Law senior lecturer Eric Cheung Tat-ming cited the Public Order Ordinance to say that such an assembly is unlawful without filing an application.

4. Redundancy

Legislator Cheng Chunt-tai said that when more than half of the police can attend such a meeting, it means that the Hong Kong Police contains a lot of redundancy. Therefore the Financial Security needs to review the situation and cut back on resources/allocations to the police.

5. Attacking the attendees.

Legislators Leung Mei-fun, Eunice Yung and Junius Ho were lawyers who were present as observers. The opposition wrote to the Bar Association and the Law Society to complain about professional lapses in ethics in attending an unlawful gathering.

6. Throwing rocks

Led by Anson Chan, any number of well-known and unknown politicians and media workers criticized the police gathering.

7. Diversion

Audrey Eu posted on Facebook: "In 1977, the police marched to decriminalize corruption; in 2017, the police demonstrated to decriminalize assault." The opposition followed this line of attack and completely ignored the police demands for "fair trials" and "public justice."

After watching all these over the past several days, I have to laugh. Only people who are afraid would react this way. Over the years, the silent majority has shown its power just a small number of times. The first time, 1.83 million signatures were gathered against Occupy Central. The second time, 40,000 policemen gathered together.

Q1. Which candidate do you support?
39.2%: John Tsang
29.3%: Carrie Lam
9.7%: Woo Kwok-hing
5.9%: Regina Ip
2.6%: Leung Kwok-hung
5.6%: None of the above
7.5%: Don't know/no opinion/refused to answer

Q2. Between John Tsang and Carrie Lam, who do you support?
53.6%: John Tsang
33.03%: Carrie Lam
6.1%: Neither
2.4%: Both
4.9%: Don't know/no opinion/refused to answer

(Oriental Daily with video) February 18, 2017.

A number of pro-police organizations marched from Chater Garden in Central to Police Headquarters in support of the seven police officers who were sentenced to 2 years in jail for assault to cause bodily harm. About several thousand people marched. The organizers claimed that more than 3,500 persons took party. The police said that the peak number was 1,800.

At the end point, a participant cursed out foreigner judges. A woman advised people not to criticize judges but was drowned out by boos.

Videos:

TVB http://news.tvb.com/local/58a801016db28c5d23aa85cb 

Ming Pao http://news.mingpao.com/ins/instantnews/web_tc/article/20170218/s00001/1487422599628

Speakout HK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLMM7p92QeE

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/1556368111346483/videos/1750530265263599/

Internet comments:

- English language coverage? Nothing whatsoever via Google News. So this event never took place for you English-only readers.

- You are very wrong here. SCMP reported on the demonstration.

- Yes, SCMP reported on a different demonstration that took place on a different day: "Protesters worried about pollution from a planned factory in Heilongjiang province find their route to a demonstration blocked by police ..." Newspaper space is finite, so the editor is required to select those items that they think are more important for their readers. Pollution in Heilongjiang is surely very important to the people of Hong Kong who live a mere 2,800+ kilometers away. After all, Hongkongers are very concerned about radiation poisoning from Fujishima (3,000+ kilometers away), and Heilongjiang is even closer to home.

- SCMP also reported on a local Hong Kong riot on this very day. "K. Wah Holdings sells all 208 flats in first batch of project at old airport site. On February 9, K. Wah released the first price list at an average of HK$17,998 per square foot. K. City did not see much interest from mainland Chinese buyers, even though flats there are available to people from across the border. Over 2,100 buyers expressed an interest in purchasing K. City's first batch."

- Here are the media crowd counts:

NOW TV - "More than 200 people"

Commercial Radio: "Several hundred people"

Headline Daily: "Several hundred people"

Apple Daily: "One thousand persons"

- (Apple Daily) February 19, 2017.

Hong Kong Polithk Social Strategic organized demonstration march from Chater Garden to Police Headquarters. Along the way, the demonstrators chanted: Oust dog judge" and "Fucking David" against Judge David John Dufton. One person dressed up as a judge and said: "I am just a dog" while others acted as if to punch and kick him.

According to accountant Mr. Lee, a two- to three-month sentence would have been enough. "I cannot say that they did no wrong, but we should forgive them for making small mistakes during the excitement."

According to housewife Miu, "the seven police used excessive force but did not cause grave harm to Ken Tsang. Law enforcement people have always used force to control situations, just like fathers beating children. It is only a matter of degree."

According to Ms. Lam who didn't know who was assaulted by the seven police officers, "His name is Chiu somebody. He poured liquid on people ...  In the United States, they would have shot you already. It is merciful to just hit you a couple of times."

A senior citizen said: "The seven police officers made a mistake -- they should have dragged him to somewhere else to beat  him." The reporter asked: 'That is to say, he deserves to be beaten up?" He answered: "Yes!"

- Yellow Ribbon media Ming Pao's front page headline takes a definite stand:

Cursing police during pro-police demonstration march, Department of Justice follow up

- Actually, the demonstrators want to be charged by the Department of Justice so that they can go before a judge. Conversely, the Department of Justice is huffing and puffing but they won't do a thing.

There is no statute (either in the Basic Law or any other local ordinance) against criticism of judges as such; even if convicted under some interpretation of perversion of the course of justice or some such, an appeal can be made on the basis that it violates freedom of speech as guaranteed under the Basic Law Article 27. If the Court of Final Appeal upholds the verdict, the National People's Congress Standing Committee can come out with an Interpretation of the Basic Law Article 27 that freedom of speech includes freedom to criticize court judges and their rulings.

(Judiciary.gov.hk)

DCCC 980/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 980 OF 2015

____________

HKSAR v
WONG Cho-shing D1
LAU Cheuk-ngai D2
PAK Wing-bun D3
LAU Hing-pui D4
CHAN Siu-tan D5
KWAN Ka-ho D6
WONG Wai-ho D7

____________

Offences:
(1) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (襲擊致造成身體傷害) (2)
Common assault (普通襲擊)

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1. The defendants are convicted after trial of assaulting Tsang Kin Chiu thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm[1]. D5 was also found guilty of a further charge of assaulting Tsang Kin Chiu[2].

2. Full particulars of the offences are set out in the reasons for verdict handed down on 14 February 2017. In summary at about 2:45 a.m. on 15 October 2014 the police carried out Operation Solarpeak to clear the protestors of the Occupy Central movement. When the police reached the end of the underpass on Lung Wo Road, Tsang Kin Chiu (“Tsang”) was seen on the planter above Lung Wo Road pouring liquid on the police.

3. Tsang was pulled down from the planter to the pavement and subdued by several uniform police officers. After the uniform police officers successfully handcuffed Tsang’s hands behind his back with plastic zip ties they handed Tsang over to D1-D6, who escorted Tsang away in the direction of Lung Wo Road. On the way Tsang was picked up and carried face down.

4. Protestors were to be taken to the escort coaches and cars on Lung Wo Road for transport to the Central Police Station. D1-D6 did not carry Tsang direct to where the coaches and cars were parked. Instead D1-D6 carried Tsang to the north side of the Lung Wui Road Government Building Pump Station East Substation (“the substation”) to assault him.

5. On reaching the substation D1-D6 were joined by D7, who helped carry Tsang to the north side of the substation. On reaching the north side of the substation Tsang was dumped on the ground and immediately assaulted by the defendants, with D7 being the first one to kick Tsang.

6. D3 participated in the assault by stabbing Tsang; stamping on Tsang and kicking Tsang and D4, D5, D6 and D7 also participated in the assault by kicking Tsang. D1 and D2 did not take part in the assault but watched what happened. Tsang received injuries to his face; the left side of the neck; the left shoulder and clavicle; the left flank; the right flank and to his chest and back.

7. Every police officer has a duty to prevent the commission of a crime, even by fellow police officers. By carrying Tsang to the substation and watching their colleagues beat up Tsang, D1 and D2, the two senior officers, intended to and did encourage and support D3-D7 to carry out the assault on Tsang, intending Tsang to sustain unlawful personal violence.

8. After the assault Tsang was frogmarched to Lung Wo Road where he boarded a car. D5 and D6 sat on either side of Tsang and accompanied him to the Central Police Station. At the police station Tsang was taken to room 7 where he stayed until he was escorted by coach to the Police College in Wong Chuk Hang. While in room 7 D5, in the presence of D6, slapped Tsang on the face twice.

Mitigation

9. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendants together with the many mitigation letters, all of which speak very highly of the defendants. D1 joined the police force in 1984; D2 in 2009; D3 in 1992; D4 in 1999; D5 in 2007; D6 in 2008; and D7 in 1998. The defendants all have long and distinguished careers in the police force earning many compliments and commendations.

10. Submissions have been made as to the unique circumstances confronting the police during the Occupy Central movement. Mr Lok SC informs the court that police officers had to work very long hours and in carrying out their duty were subject to insulting remarks and violent behaviour from the protestors. I am told 130 police officers were injured. There can be no doubt that all police officers, including the defendants, were working under great pressure during the Occupy Central movement.

11. Mr Lok SC, Mr Cheng SC and Ms Lam specifically submitted that if a prison sentence is to be imposed then the sentence should be suspended[3].

Sentence

12. In HKSAR v Hui Man Tai[4] the Court of Appeal said:

“Police officers in whom the public place trust to uphold the law, but who themselves break the very laws they are empowered and entrusted to uphold, have to be made examples in terms of deterrent sentencing so that others will not be tempted to follow along similar lines and so that public confidence will be maintained.”

13. The defendants have not only brought dishonour to the Hong Kong Police Force they have also damaged Hong Kong’s reputation in the international community, the assault having been widely viewed around the world and reported as front-page news in a number of countries[5].

14. Although Tsang had broken the law for which he was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment[6] and the defendants were at the time acting under immense stress, there was no justification for taking Tsang to the substation and assaulting him.

15. The defendants, serving police officers who in the execution of their duty took Tsang to the substation to assault him; the multiplicity of the injuries sustained by Tsang as a result of the assault; and the damage to Hong Kong’s reputation make this, in my view, a very serious case.

16. I am satisfied a term of imprisonment is appropriate. Tsang was defenceless, his hands handcuffed behind his back with plastic ties. The assault was a vicious assault, in particular the first thirty seconds when Tsang was dumped on the ground, stabbed, stamped on and repeatedly kicked. Most fortunately Tsang did not suffer more serious injuries.

17. I am satisfied a sentence of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment is appropriate.

18. Taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time and the great stress the police were under in handling the Occupy Central movement; that the defendants, all of clear record, have served the community as police officers; that the conviction will result in all the defendants being dismissed from the police force and the likely loss of any pensions; and the stress caused while waiting for trial, I reduce the sentence by 6 months to 2 years imprisonment.

19. Having regard to all the circumstances of the commission of the offence and that of the defendants, I am satisfied that the assault is too serious for the imposition of a suspended sentence.

20. On charge 2, I am satisfied the proper sentence is 1 month imprisonment. Although separate from the assault at the substation, considering totality of sentence, I am satisfied a concurrent sentence is appropriate. D5 is sentenced to 1 month imprisonment concurrent to the sentence imposed on charge 1.

(D. J. DUFTON) District Judge

[1] Contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 39 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.

[2] Common assault contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 40 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212.

[3] In support of his submission exceptional circumstances were not required before imposing a suspended sentence Mr Lok SC submitted Secretary for Justice v Wade, Ian Francis CAAR 1/2015

[4] CACC 334/2007.

[5] See §3 of the Notice of Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, marked ‘H (1)’ for identification.

[6] Tsang appealed against conviction and sentence which appeal the court was told was still pending.

Internet comments:

- (Wikipedia) R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233) is a leading English case on the impartiality and recusal of judges. It is famous for its precedence in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. It also brought into common parlance the oft-quoted aphorism "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."

- (Guide to Judicial Conduct)

Impartiality

19. Justice must be done and must seen to be done. Impartiality must exist in both as a matter of fact and as a matter of reasonable perception. If partiality is reasonably perceived, that perception is likely to leave a sense of grievance and of injustice having been done, which is destructive of confidence in judicial decisions.

20. The perception of impartiality is measured by the standard of a reasonable, fair-minded and well-informed person, as discussed more fully in relation to questions of apparent bias.

The apparent bias test

47. The apparent bias test may be stated as follows:

A particular judge is disqualified from sitting if the circumstances are such as would lead a reasonable, fair-mined and well-informed observer to conclude that there is a real possibility that the judge would be biased.

- The seven policemen were sentenced to two years in jail. You can compare what happened to the rioters in the Fishball Revolution:

The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 1
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 2
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 3
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 4
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 5
The Martyrs of the Fishball Revolution Part 6

Here is one of those cases:

(Oriental Daily) December 19, 2016.

17-year-old waiter Chan Ho-man pleaded guilty to the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

According to the police officer Wong Chak-fai, the defendant came out of the crowd and threw a brick at Wong from ten meters away. The brick hit Wong on the left knee, causing bleeding. The defendant fled, but he was subdued by other police officers present at the scene. Under police caution, Chan admitted that he had come to support the demonstrators and picked up a brick to throw at the police.

In mitigation, the defense said that yesterday is Chan's birthday. On the evening of the Internet, Chan heard about the incident and went down to Mong Kok to offer support. He committed the crime in a moment of excitement. The defense said that Chan did not intend to engage in violence when he left home to head towards Mong Kok, and that Chan cannot control the others who were digging out the bricks from the pavement. The magistrate asked: "Can he control his own hand and feet, and their actions?" The defense concurred, and said that Chan is willing to accept the consequences.

The magistrate Heung Shuk-han ordered Chan Ho-man remanded in custody pending reports from the probation officer and the Detention Centre.

(Oriental Daily) December 20, 2016.

This morning magistrate Heung Shuk-han received a package today. When she opened it, she found a 5-inch box cutter inside. She immediately told the court to call the police.

(Metro Radio) January 9, 2017.

Magistrate Heung Shuk-han sentenced Chan Ho-man to an 18-month probation order. She said that the three weeks of pre-sentencing detention should constitute a profound lesson on the defendant who spent his 18th birthday behind bars.

The magistrate characterized the defendant as "having a volatile personality, easily influenced by others, immature thinking, lack of good judgment, weak in self-control, dim awareness of abiding by the law and directionless in life." Therefore she believes that he acted in a moment of rashness for which he should be held personally responsible. Since the defendant is repentant and has no prior records, an 18-month probation order with night curfews is appropriate. The magistrate said that the box cutter incident did not figure in her ruling.

- (SCMP) Principal magistrate Peter Law Tak-chuen sentenced Ken Tsang to five weeks for one count of assaulting police by splashing a foul-smelling liquid on them and three weeks each for two counts of resisting arrest, all to be served concurrently. Magistrate Law promptly freed Tsang on HK$300 cash bail pending appeal.

- 5 weeks for Ken Tsang ($300 cash bail pending appeal) versus 2 years (=104 weeks) for the seven police officers who arrested Ken Tsang.

- Over time, people have seen any number of cases. To their minds, the sentences given to the seven cops appear to be much more severe compared to rioters. Yes, judges may have complex considerations spinning through their heads and duly written down in the judgment. While they may think that justice was done, the people do not see it that way.

- (Wen Wei Po) February 19, 2017. The sentence must factor in the profession of the defendants, because they are law enforcers who must know the law. Here are the more serious precedents which should have applied to this case under the vaunted Common Law system:

In 2009, Yau Ma Ti police sergeant Tam Wing-hong was accused of fighting with a man, punching the man such that his cranium collapsed. Tam was found guilty of seriously injuring another person and sentenced to ten months in jail. On appeal, the High Court ruled that the man was not a credible witness and vacated the verdict.

In 2001, Yuen Long Anti-Organized Crime Unit senior inspector Li Chi-fai was accused of dragging a discotheque manager into the back alley to assault, and then accused the man of obstructing police business. Lee was found guilty of perverting the course of justice and common assault. He was sentenced to six months in jail.

In 1998, four police officers (an inspector, a sergeant and two officers) were found guilty of assaulting a drug user occasioning actual bodily harm. The inspector and the sergeant were sentenced to 6 months, and the two police officers to 4 months.

- (HKG Pao) February 25, 2017.

In legal systems based on common law, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

Here are some precedents:

In the 1985 case of Kam Tin-po, the police wanted to enter a house to conduct a search. The householder refused to believe that the plainclothes policeman was an officer, refused to open the door and called the police himself. Uniformed police officers arrived to confirm the identity of the plainclothes policeman. After entering the house, the plainclothes policeman handcuffed the householder and then assaulted him to cause multiple injuries all over his body. The plainclothes policeman was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was found guilty. The sentence was 7 months in jail.

In the 1995 case of Cheung Kin-tak, a man was stopped by a policeman. Another policeman used foul language to curse the man out, and the man replied in kind. The policemen attacked the man, causing contusions in the stomach, back and head. Three off-duty Customs Department workers volunteered to serve as witnesses of this case of police assault. Uniformed policemen arrived at the scene and promptly proceeded to assault the three Customs Department workers. In the end, six police officers were charged, including three for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. They were found guilty. Two of the three were sentenced to 6 months in jail and the third to 7 months in jail.

Based upon these precedents, the sentence of 2 years for the seven policemen in this case is clearly too heavy. If the seven policemen appeal based upon these precedents, they should be able to get sentence reductions.

- A sample of cases to compare to the case of seven policemen:

Case#: KCCC 4178/14
Charge: Assaulting a police officer
Case: Accused of hitting a sergeant with a tent and kicking him.
Verdict: Guilty
Sentence: 12 months of probation

Case#: KTCC 6008/14
Charge: Assaulting a police officer
Case: Tussling with and dragging a police officer down to the ground
Verdict: Not guilty, released immediately
Explanation: The magistrate said that it must be an accident -- as the defendant fell to the ground, he reached out with his hand and accidentally pulled the policeman down.

Case#: ESCC 2201/15
Charge: Assaulting a police officer
Verdict: Not guilty
Case: Accused to throwing a rock at a police officer in Tamar Park, Admiralty
Verdict: Not guilty, released immediately
Explanation: The admission of guilty by the defendant was taken down under imperfect conditions and was therefore excluded in order to be fair to the defendant. The prosecution was also unable to prove that the piece of rock produced in court was the one that was thrown by the defendant (for example, no fingerprints and no identificaiton via line-up). Given that there is no evidence without reasonable doubt, the defendant is found not guilty.

- Some statistics from the Department of Security on Occupy Central:

Total number of persons arrested = 1,003
Number of persons charged = 157
Number of persons found guilty = 68
    Number incarcerated (between 2 days to 10 months) = 30
    Number fined (between $300 to $3000) = 23
    Number sentenced to community service (80 to 800 hours) = 9
    Number sentenced to probation order = 6

- (SCMP) June 7, 2013.

A former Wan Chai divisional police commander was jailed for a year for misconduct in public office yesterday and accused by a magistrate of telling lies in court.

Magistrate Adriana Tse condemned Superintendent Titus Wong Koon-ho, 51, for showing no remorse during the trial and said he had given the worst testimony she had heard during her years as a magistrate.

Defence counsel Albert Luk Wai-hung yesterday submitted to the court 60 letters of mitigation and appreciation, including one from the central government's liaison office in Hong Kong. Luk also asked Tse to take into account Wong's contributions to the city.

Tse rebutted this by saying that police officers could not point to their community service as a defence in such circumstances. "They do not serve society for free," she said. "They are well paid for it."

Well, judges/magistrates are very well-paid too, so why are they so thin-skinned about any criticisms? Don't high-paying jobs come with arrows and barbs?


Judges' monthly salaries
- District court, $145,000
- Court of First Instance, $245,000
- Court of Appeal, $257,000
- Court of Final Appeal, $293,000.

- Judge David Dufton: "13. The defendants have not only brought dishonour to the Hong Kong Police Force they have also damaged Hong Kong’s reputation in the international community, the assault having been widely viewed around the world and reported as front-page news in a number of countries."

- The Occupy Central/Umbrella Revolution/Fishball Revolution was widely reported as sino-phobic actions, which negatively impacted the tourism. Hong Kong received negative publicity as the place where mainland tourists or even people who look like mainland tourists are harassed. The tourism, retail and hospitality sectors took losses as much as 10% compared to previous years. So why didn't the judges see fit to impose heavy sentences as deterrence?

- (Oriental Daily) February 28, 2017.

Number of total tourists by year
2014: 6,083,900
2015: 5,930,800
2016: 5,665,500
2017: 5,538,800 (est)

Number of mainland tourists by year
2014: 4,724,800
2015: 4,584,200
2016: 4,277,800
2017: 4,118,800 (est)

Average expenditure for overnight visitors by year
2014: $7,960
2015: $7,234
2016: $6,602
2017: $6,256

- The judges started with very lenient sentences for rioters who were engaged in civil disobedience. The maximum sentence for those Umbrella Revolution/Fishball Revolution was ten months for Ng "Capone" Ting Pong for assaulting three police officers occasioning actual bodily harm. Given the adverse public reaction for the seven policemen this time, the next Umbrella Revolution/Fishball Revolution rioter will probably have to receive more than two years in jail in order for justice to be seen to be done.

- None of this would be necessary if the judges impose the maximum sentences against all comers. Because they started with covert and even overt sympathy for 'civil disobedience', they end up damaging the credibility of the judiciary instead.

- This is not the rule of law. This is not even the rule of man. This is the rule of public relations perceptions.

- (Wen Wei Po) February 18, 2017.

Legislator Junius Ho said that the fact that the seven policemen were sentenced to two years in jail showed that everybody is equal before the law. However, none of the leaders of Occupy Central have been prosecuted yet, and that shows the justice has not been done.

Legislator Leung Mei-fun said that the sentences were clearly too severe. It was understandable that the police officers could over-react in that situation. Most citizens oppose the illegal Occupy Central and are sympathetic towards the seven policemen who were maintaining public order. She said that pro-Occupy should not be gloating about the sentences, because the destruction of respect towards the law is nothing to celebrate about.

- (SCMP) Facts, hypocrisy and the outcry over police ‘abuse’ in Hong Kong. By Michael Chugani. February 21, 2017.

This is likely to make me a target of bricks prised from Mong Kok streets but I would like to stick my middle finger at those who claim police brutality is prevalent. If they want to know what police abuse really means, try poking an umbrella, yellow or not, at a cop in the US or Europe, both democracies.

These people, including Occupy protester Ken Tsang Kin-chiu, tarnish Hong Kong’s image with baseless claims that the beating of Tsang by seven policemen was the tip of an iceberg that only came to light because the media filmed it. What’s galling is that those who make such claims are themselves abusers of the law.

The police didn’t start Occupy or the Mong Kok riot. It was their job to end them. Those who put police through 79 days of hell with their illegal occupation have used Tsang’s beating to demonise the force. Why are they not condemning as thugs the Mong Kok rioters who bashed a policeman after knocking him down?

These hypocrites say being overworked cannot justify the bashing of Tsang who was convicted of pouring liquid on policemen. I agree. But then why do they use so-called root causes to justify Mong Kok rioters hurling bricks at police?

Opposition leaders accuse the police of double standards for not yet prosecuting a police superintendent who allegedly beat a protester with his baton. Double standards? Why are they not also demanding to know why they themselves have yet to be charged for their role in Occupy?

There is no alternative fact to morality. If you mount morality’s high horse you must embrace all its principles, not cherry-pick. Yet that’s exactly what these hypocrites are doing.

They have condemned the police commissioner for saying he is saddened by the convictions of Tsang’s attackers. Of course he has to stand by his men in the same way these hypocrites formed a protective ring around the Youngspiration pair after the Legislative Council president ordered them out.

These hypocrites want the police chief to apologise for Tsang’s beating. How about Tsang apologising for splashing the seven with a foul-smelling liquid? And why haven’t the hypocrites apologised to the public for the Mong Kok riots and Occupy. Writing this doesn’t make me pro-establishment, anti-democracy or a police lapdog. It makes me pro-facts and anti-hypocrisy.

- Eh, Ken Tsang did not splash those seven policemen with a foul-smelling liquid. Tsang splashed an unknown number of other policemen from a high vantage point down on Lung Wo Road below.

- Here is public perception:

Judge: "I'm here!! Don't worry! The police won't dare to fight back!"

- (Bastille Post) Like many other verdicts in Hong Kong, completely opposite views exist in society. For many people, Occupy Central was an illegal action and the police were acting in accordance with the law to clear the sites. During the process, it was understandable that some excessive application of force may be used.

For the pro-Occupy people and the pan-democrats, Occupy Central was started to fight for freedom and democracy and therefore they hold the high moral point. When the police come in to clear the sites, they were immoral or even unlawful. In order for justice to be done, the law had to be brushed aside.

That is to say, different groups of people have different views on the verdict. Depending on positions, people are happy, angry, sad, indifferent, etc. This would be the same with other verdicts.

Of course, many people are concerned about whether this was a fair verdict. No verdict is going to please everybody at the same time. But the problem with this and other verdicts is that people will look at them with too many moral and political factors.

Previously, Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and Alex Chow stood trial for charging into Government Plaza. The judge said that this was different from other cases, because these young man had "good" motives" (namely, going for democracy and freedom) and therefore he imposed light sentences.

For similar reasons, many people who assaulted police officers during Occupy Central were given very lenient sentences (such as probation or community service). And as of today (February 18, 2017), the Justice Department has not yet even prosecuted the masterminds of the Occupy Central (which took place in October 2014). Meanwhile the police who were out there to maintain law and order are being sent to jail.

People are bound to ask, Aren't these police officers young men too? Aren't their motives (namely, maintaining law and order) good too? Why are their sentences much more severe than the rioters who commit arson, assault, vandalism, etc?

On a standalone basis and reading the logical analysis of the presiding judge, it is hard to say whether this was fair or unfair. But if this verdict is compared to all the other things that were happening during Occupy Central, the majority of people will think that there are double standards.

- And if you criticize the judges and their judgments, you are threatened with an investigation by the Judiciary Department. That is alright too, provided this is enforced uniformly. For example, here is this August 14, 2015 post by the Hong Kong Independence Alliance to tell the treacherous Hong Kong judge Chan Pik-kiu to arrange for his funeral matters and to challenge the Hong  Kong Public Security Bureau to arrest him. Where the hell was the Judiciary Department?

- Here is how to see justice being done correctly:

Basic Law Article 48

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions

( 1 ) To lead the government of the Region;
( 2 ) To be responsible for the implementation of this Law and other laws which, in accordance with this Law, apply in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;
( 3 ) To sign bills passed by the Legislative Council and to promulgate laws;
To sign budgets passed by the Legislative Council and report the budgets and final accounts to the Central People's Government for the record;
( 4 ) To decide on government policies and to issue executive orders;
( 5 ) To nominate and to report to the Central People's Government for appointment the following principal officials: Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of Departments, Directors of Bureaux, Commissioner Against Corruption, Director of Audit, Commissioner of Police, Director of Immigration and Commissioner of Customs and Excise; and to recommend to the Central People's Government the removal of the above-mentioned officials;
( 6 ) To appoint or remove judges of the courts at all levels in accordance with legal procedures;
( 7 ) To appoint or remove holders of public office in accordance with legal procedures;
( 8 ) To implement the directives issued by the Central People's Government in respect of the relevant matters provided for in this Law;
( 9 ) To conduct, on behalf of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, external affairs and other affairs as authorized by the Central Authorities;
( 10 ) To approve the introduction of motions regarding revenues or expenditure to the Legislative Council;
( 11 ) To decide, in the light of security and vital public interests, whether government officials or other personnel in charge of government affairs should testify or give evidence before the Legislative Council or its committees;
( 12 ) To pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties; and
( 13 ) To handle petitions and complaints.

- Is it wrong to pardon guilty people? (Ming Pao Canada) Hong Kong Governor MacLehose announced on 5 November 1977 that all those police officers who were suspected of bribery but had not been charged as of 1 January 1977 would be pardoned.

- Universal standards: List of people pardoned or granted clemency by the President of the United States Approximately 20,000 pardons and commutations were issued by U.S. presidents in the 20th century alone. Some of those cases were clearly nepotism, such as Bill Clinton pardoning his brother Robert Clinton who was convicted in a drug case. Another cases involved swapping of interest, such as pardoning President Richard Nixon in exchange for his resignation.

- Daily Mail, November 4, 2016. The publisher/editors/reporters should go to jail for insulting/threatening judges?

Q1. Hong Kong will be holding the election of the Chief Executive. Which of these four candidates are better suited to become the next Chief Executive?
37.4%: John Tsang
34.0%: Carrie Lam
7.9%: Woo Kwok-hing
7.8%: Regina Ip
0.3%: All of the above
5.8%: None of the above
6.9%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

Q2. Of these four candidates, who has the better capability to become the next Chief Executive?
39.9%: Carrie Lam
36.4%: John Tsang
6.1%: Woo Kwok-hing
8.5%: Regina Ip
0.5%: All of the above
3.1%: None of the above
5.4%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

Q3. Which issues should be given priority by the next Chief Executive?
45.5%: Land/housing
18.8%: Economic development
11.1%: Retirement protection
9.0%: Constitutional development
8.7%: Poverty relief
3.6%: Labor benefits
1.6%: Other
1.6%: Don't know/no opinion

Q4. Which candidate do you think will ultimately become the next Chief Executive?
66.0%: Carrie Lam
19.1%: John Tsang
4.0%: Regina Ip
1.8%: Woo Kwok-hing
0.4%: Other
8.6%: Don't know/hard to say/no opinion

(Oriental Daily) February 17, 2017.

In 2014 during the Occupy movement, the police assisted the bailiffs to carry out a court order to clear Mong Kok. Seventeen individuals were charged with contempt of court, including Civic Passion vice-president Cheng Kam-mun and part-time waiter Au Yuk-kwan. The two are now pleading guilty as charged.

Today the High Court heard their lawyers present their case. The argument was that their cases were much less serious many others during Occupy Central, and therefore they should be leniently penalized.

28-year-old Cheng Kam-mun is an assistant to legislative councilor Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion). He arrived at court 40 minutes late. As the lawyers presented their arguments, the judge Chan Hing-wai found Cheng Kam-mun fiddling around with his mobile phone. Judge Chan said that he may confiscate the mobile phone and used English to lecture Cheng: "What are you here for? Can you come and go as you please? Can you play around as you please? I don't see you showing any sincere contrition. You came here without any hint of remorse."

Both defendants are receiving legal aid. According to the lawyer, Au has apologized for what happened that day. Au does not have any political affiliations and he joined the Occupy Movement in order to show his dissatisfaction with the government. Although he was in contempt of court, he did not intend to challenge the authority of the court. He felt that he was only opposing the police and not the court.

Their lawyer also said that the court needs to impose sentences that have deterrent effects so that the authority of the court will not be challenged. But a large number of people have participated in the Occupy Movement in various capacities. Some of the participants were ignorant and stupid. Au has now awakened. Of the various options opened to the court (such as going to jail immediately, probation, fine, good behavior bond), Au's case falls in the lightest category.

Their lawyer said that many of the defendants charged with contempt of court are fighting their cases in court. The trials can last 30 days. If they lose their cases, they face long prison terms. However, these two defendants have pleaded guilty and they have not wasted the court's time.

Although the two defendants are receiving legal aid, the Justice Department is asking them to pay punitive legal fees. The defense said that if the court accepts the application by the Justice Department, then every single person who is being charged with contempt of court will be bankrupt. The court should be encouraging those who are contesting their cases to plead guilty, and therefore Au should not be paying at all and Cheng should be paying partially.

(HK01) March 30, 2017.

When they were arrested at around 3pm on November 25, 2017, Cheng Kam-mun said that he flet pain on the left side of his face, his back and his chest; a  bruise on his left knee; swelling on his left face; etc. He was sent to Caritas Hospital for treatment. Au was not injured, but the arresting officer had bruises/scratches on his left elbow and forearm.

(Ming Pao) February 17, 2017.

According to part-time waiter Au Yuk-kwan, he knew nothing about the separations of powers. So when he saw the police read out the court injunction, he thought that it came from the police and not the court. Au was only dissatisfied with the police and did not intend to challenge the authority of the court. Au said that he has learned a huge lesson and hopes that the court will impose just a fine on him.

The defense did not present any reason for mitigation on behalf of Cheng Kam-mun. Some background was given, such as Cheng is presently an Legco aide earning $15,000 a month and that he has not yet completed his university studies.

(Hong Kong Free Press) March 30, 2017.

Activist Alvin Cheng of the localist party Civic Passion has been handed a three-month jail term for ignoring a court order to vacate a protest campsite in Mong Kok during the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy movement.

Cheng, 28, and another activist, Au Yuk-Kwan, 23, pleaded guilty earlier to one count of criminal contempt. Au was given a jail sentence of one month with a suspended sentence of 12 months, and ordered to pay HK$10,000.

The High Court rejected Cheng’s request for a bail on the basis that there was no reasonable ground for filing an appeal against the conviction.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyMPPaVN4IY

(Oriental Daily) September 4, 2016.

Avery Ng threw a stinky fish sandwich at CY Leung, but missed. Instead Avery Ng copped some dirty orange spots on his own white shirt. Ng explained that he threw the stinky fish because many citizens are going hungry. Ng said that the police intercepted him and took down his Hong Kong ID information. He said that the police told him that they reserve the right to charge him with common assault.

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 16, 2017.

Pro-democracy activist Avery Ng Man-yuen has been charged in connection with an alleged assault during a protest against Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying last year.

Ng, chairman of the League of Social Democrats, wrote in a Facebook post that police attempted to arrest him at his residence on Thursday morning, but he was not there. He initially speculated that the charges were related to him allegedly throwing a “smelly fish sandwich” at Leung on the day of the Legislative Council elections.

According to Ming Pao, Ng and other party members demonstrated against Leung on the morning of September 4 last year. As Leung arrived to vote at Robinson Road in Mid-Levels, Ng allegedly threw a “sandwich” at him, but police did not make any arrests that day.

Ng said on Thursday that he was notified of his arrest on a charge of common assault, and would go to a police station in the afternoon to assist in the investigation. He said he had predicted that he would be prosecuted at some point for what he termed his “close-range protest using a smelly fish sandwich.”  He made reference to the case of former League of Social Democrats member Derek Chan Tak-cheung, who was jailed for three weeks in November 2014 for throwing an egg at then financial secretary John Tsang Chun-wah. “I think this bodes ill,” he said.

In the afternoon, Ng wrote on Facebook that he was to be charged with assaulting a chief inspector – not Chief Executive Leung – using an “Indian chicken roll” in the same incident. He has not elaborated further on the incident so far.

(HKG Pao) May 5, 2017.

At the pre-trial hearing, the prosecution announced that they have 6 witnesses plus 4 videos which add up to 30 minutes. Avery Ng said that he plans to summon Chief Executive CY Leung as a witness.

(Oriental Daily) July 19, 2017.

The trial of Avery Ng was supposed to take place this morning. Ng showed up in Eastern District court at 1030am. He told the magistrate that his alarm clock was not working, so he set off to hail a taxi at 9am. The magistrate told Ng that this was not his first time in court and that he must know the importance of being on time. The magistrate confiscated Ng's $500 bail and ordered him to pay $1,000 bail by 1pm.

(Wen Wei Po) August 24, 2016.

According to Passion Times, about 10 members the Internet media outlet Hong Kong Peanut (founded by League of Social Democrats ex-chairman Andrew To) plus supporters of League of Social Democrats and People Power harassed candidate Raymond Wong Yuk-man at a Kowloon West election forum. Civic Passion leader Wong Yeung-tat called his supporters to come down.

The discussion forum was held at the HKICC Lee Shua Kee School of Creativity on Junction Road, Kowloon City. More than 30 Civic Passion members faced 20 anti-Wong and Hong Kong Peanut supporters and others. There was a clash. The anti-Wong people pasted posters that say "Violent leader: I was merely talking" and "Do not forget Ede Road: He got wealthier over time."

After "Four-eyed Brother" Cheng Kam-mun arrived, a policeman was pushed onto the ground. The police used pepper spray to control the crowd. Dante Ma, a supporter of candidate CK Ho, posted a video on YouTube under the title "Civic Passion is triad society". He wrote on Facebook, "As a rookie, I was lucky to witness the gangster mode of Civic Passion tonight. I advise my friends and relatives not to cast a single vote for them. They are thoroughly triad gangsters. No wonder social activism is dysfunctional."

Candidate CK Ho wrote on his Facebook: "A supporter of mine drove his car to this Cable TV forum. Afterwards, his car was surrounded by more than 100 followers of Raymond Wong. Some of these followers vandalized his car."

Wong Yeung-tat wrote on his Facebook: "Even today there are still people who say that Civic Passion people are thugs, that we are like a triad gang ... this really caused me to be scared ... Did you just realize this?" According to another person, "This means that Wong admits that they are thugs."

The police said that three police officers were injured. The case will be investigated as assault on police officers and criminal destruction of property.

Civic Passion video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AySMEXmtItw The bespectacled guy in a white shirt is Cheng Kam-mun and the tall guy in black t-shirt, black baseball cap and surgical mask is Lee Ching-hei (follow the red arrow at the beginning of the clip).

(Headline Daily) February 21, 2017.

Last Wednesday, the police arrested a 22-year-old man named Chu on suspicion of assaulting a police officer. He has posted bail since. Today, the police arrested a 30-year-old man named Lee on suspicion of assaulting a police officer. He has also posted bail.

(Oriental Daily) October 27, 2017.

The trial of 31-year-old technician Lee Ching-hei began today. Lee is charged with two accounts of assaulting police officers.

Constable Lau Kin-pui testified that about 30 Civic Passion members were facing off against about 20 League of Social Democrats members at the time. Suddenly, 10 to 20 Civic Passion members charged onto the roadway. Lau and his colleagues set up a human chain to block them. These people pushed and cursed the police. Lau was pulled from behind by a strong man wearing a cap, eyeglasses and surgical mask. The man had beard on both sides of his face. Because Lau was also pushed by other persons, he lost sight of this man. Afterwards the police arrested the defendant. Lau was able to identify the defendant from a line-up.

Under cross-examination, Lau said that he saw 50% of the face of the attacker for about six seconds. This person did not face Lau directly. Lau said that the defendant did not have beard on both sides of his face at the line-up. The defense said that the defendant did have beard on both sides of his face at the time.

(Oriental Daily) December 12, 2017.

The magistrate pointed out that although the attacker wore a surgical mask and a cap, the lighting was good and the experienced police officer can identify the attacker up close. Therefore he believed that the defendant was the attacker and found him guilty. The magistrate wanted to know more about Lee's background and whether he experienced any remorse, so sentencing will wait until December 28 pending a probation officer's report.

(Silent Majority HK) December 13, 2017.

During the trial, Lee Ching-hei summoned his father as a witness. According to Elder Lee, he was driving a van in Kowloon Tong when the car tire burst. At the time, he did not have any tools with him. So he called his son Lee Ching-hei to help him. Therefore Lee Ching-hei was not at the scene of the incident. The magistrate said that he did not believe this testimony.

(Oriental Daily) December 28, 2017.

In mitigation, the defense presented letters from Lee Ching-hei's family and friends to show that he is a man of good character who tends to be too passionate when it comes to politics. At this time, Lee is not longer affiliated of any political organization and he wants to focus on being a gas installation guy who is responsible to his family. Therefore his chances of recidivism is very low.

The judge said that the two police officers were in the line of duty trying to maintain peace and order when two political factions were facing off each other. Therefore it is a serious crime to assault the two innocent police officers. However, this was not the worst possible situation because the policemen were not seriously injured and the defendant did not use any weapon. Therefore the judge sentenced the defendant to a total of 7 weeks in jail.

(Oriental Daily) February 26, 2017.

57-year-old taxi driver Cheung Kau was charged with (1) being in an unlawful assembly outside Government Headquarters on the first day of the Occupy Movement (September 28, 2014) and (2) being in possession of a restricted weapon (box cutter) in Mong Kok on November 29, 2014. Cheung testified that with respect to (1), he was calling on the demonstrators to act with restraint; with respect to (2), his box cutter has legitimate uses. Earlier the magistrate found that the evidence exists to support the two charges.

Today in Kwun Tong Court, the magistrate found Cheung not guilty on both counts. With respect to the count of unlawful gathering, the magistrate watched the video and said that the defendant was merely telling the demonstrators not to charge. With respect to the count of possession of a restricted weapon for the purpose of destroying property, the prosecutor depended on the testimony of the police officer. It was alleged that the defendant told the police officer that the box cutter was intended to cut off the ropes that secure the metal barricades used by the police. However, the notebook containing the statement did not have the signature of the defendant and the policeman could not explain why the signature was not taken. Thus, the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt.

Internet comments:

- Here is the relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfUTqQmF_vU. The defendant wore a brown shirt and appeared at the start of the video. At 1:53, he led the charge against the police.

- (Ta Kung Pao) February 26, 2017. Magistrate So Man-lung said that the prosecutor was unable to establish whether the defendant merely wanted to stabilize the metal barricade that separated the police and the demonstrators versus charging the police line himself. Since the defendant gets the benefit of doubt, the magistrate found him not guilty. So Man-lung added that if the defendant really wanted to help the police as claimed, then his action actually caused more chaos. "If you want to help, you should please go home."

(Ming Pao, Apple Daily) April 20, 2017.

City University fourth-year student Lee Cheuk-hin filed at High Court against the police for unlawful assault and detention. He demanded $12 million in reparations from the Police Commissioner. Today at a pre-trial hearing, Judge Mohan Bharwaney wondered how Lee could file such a claim when the only injury was a scratch on his hand. He said that "if Lee has got a little bit of brain," he would not file the case at the High Court.

Today Lee Cheuk-hin was not present. Judge Bharwaney questioned Lee's lawyer just why this case merits to be heard in High Court. He said that the High Court is not a game; instead the cases involving $10+ million in damages are usually about permanent injuries such as broken necks or paralysis of the lower body.

Judge Bharwaney said that Lee professes to be a university student. He wondered if Lee can afford to pay the legal fees in case he loses? If the judge finds Lee's claims to be frivolous, he may impose a punitive fine. Does Lee realize that he can be bankrupt as a result? Lee's lawyer said that Lee's parents should be able to pay for the legal fees.

Judge Bharwaney scheduled another hearing on July 21. He asked Lee to show up with proof of his student status and grade reports in the company of the parents. Finally Judge Bharwaney said that if the plaintiff cannot justify why the case has to be heard in High Court, then he can assign it to the District Court. He said that if Lee wants to score a political point, then "take your demonstration to the street, not my court."

According to the plaintiff, Lee Cheuk-hin claimed to be assaulted by several policemen at the intersection of Argyle Street and Tung Choi Street on the early morning of December 1 last year. One male policeman alleged squeezed Lee's penis and testicles very hard, causing great pain. In addition, the police took away his backpack causing him to lose the backpack and its contents (including a wallet, IDs, camera and cash).

(HK01) https://www.hk01.com/%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/90004/%E8%BF%B7%E8%97%A5%E6%80%A7%E4%BE%B5%E5%85%A9%E5%A5%B3%E6%A1%88-%E4%BA%8B%E4%B8%BB%E9%86%92%E4%BE%86%E9%A9%9A%E8%A6%BA%E8%A2%AB%E5%91%8A%E6%AD%A3%E5%BC%B7%E5%A7%A6%E5%A5%B9-%E4%B8%8D%E9%81%8E%E6%88%91%E5%86%87%E5%B0%84%E7%B2%BE- May 10, 2017.

44-year-old defendant Man Yiu-fai is facing four counts. On December 12, 2014, he gave Flunitrazepam (FM2) to female X and on May 31, 2015 he gave Flunitrazepam (FM2) to female Y in order to render them unconscious so as to have unlawful sexual activity with them. He is also charged with one count of sexual molestation against female X and one count of rape against female Y.

According to the opening statement of the prosecution, the defendant got acquainted with 22-year-old female X during the Occupy Mong Kok movement. They maintained contact via Whatsapp afterwards. X has health problems. On December 12, 2014, she went to the health centre of Man Yiu-fai. After the other people left, Man gave her two cups of drinks that he says would help her sleep. Then he took her into a room to massage her back. X lost consciousness. When she came to, she found herself naked on the upper torso. Her jeans and underpants were pulled down to her backside. The defendant appeared to want to kiss her. X pushed the defendant aside, put on her clothes, left and called the police.

23-year-old female German tourist Y came to Hong Kong to visit her boyfriend and got to know the defendant through friends. On May 31, 2015, Y went to the defendant's health centre. The defendant gave her a cup of health drink. After she drank it, she felt dizzy. She lost consciousness while the defendant massaged her back. When she woke up, she realized that the defendant was raping her. She called the police that night. The police found three videos on the defendant's digital watch, showing the defendant raping the unconscious Y.

The lab analyses showed that the blood and urine samples of the two defendants contained the powerful sleep-inducing drug Flunitrazepam which is a restricted drug. Under police caution, the defendant admitted having sexual intercourse with Y: "I fucked the chick, but I did not ejaculate." He also admitted that he drugged Y's drink.

University graduate X testified first. She said that she was acquainted with Man Yiu-fai during the Occupy Mong Kok demonstrations. She thought that the defendant was willing to help others and she held a good impression of him. She had told the defendant that she suffers from sleep apnea and other problems. The defendant said that he is knowledgeable in Chinese herbal medicine, with a bachelor's degree. He invited X to visit his Nathan Road health centre.

On the day of the incident, the defendant waited for the twenty or so students to leave the centre and then offered X a hot drink. X refused at first, but finally drank it. She described the drink as "Very bitter, very hot." The defendant gave another drink with strong Chinese medicine flavor. After 10 to 15 minutes, she began to feel dizzy and very sleep.

X lost consciousness. When she came to, she found herself naked on the upper torso. Her jeans and panties were pulled down halfway down her backside. The defendant was next to her with both hands on her body. He tried to kiss her. She moved her head to the left and got up to resist. She put her bra back on. The defendant took out her blue long-sleeve shirt for her to put on.

As X prepared to leave, she found out that the sound on her mobile phone had been turned off. Her ex-boyfriend had called her 8 times during this time. She called her ex-boyfriend and told her about what happened. He came to meet her in Mong Kok, and observed that she was mentally troubled. He took her to Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

Under cross-examination, X said that she had visited a physical therapist for a leg injury. The therapist thought that she had spinal dislocation. During Occupy Mong Kok, X had seen the defendant provide therapy in Mong Kok and help people elude the police. On November 28, 2014, she found a friend through the assistance of the defendant. Afterwards the friend told X that the defendant could help X with her spinal problem. So X went to the defendant's office. According to X, the defendant is a Chinese medicine doctor. The defense clarified that the defendant has bachelor degrees in Chinese medicine and Chinese herbal medicine, but he is not licensed to practice in Hong Kong.

The defense pointed out that the defendant gave her two drinks to help relieve her sleeplessness. He also dropped some liquid into her nose which cause her to drip. During this time, the defendant massaged her lower body first, then her upper torso. The defendant asked her to remove her clothes to make massaging easier.

When X heard this, she got upset and said: "I already said in my statement to the police that I was very much dazed at the time. I did so subconsciously. I did not have the ability to judge. If I could judge, I would have let it happen. And then there would not be another victim in this world."

At this point, she broke down and cried.

(Oriental Daily) May 11, 2017.

25-year-old German female Y testified that her friend recommended her to visit Man Yiu-fai to treat her back problems. When Y went first in early 2015, she thought that Man was "odd." When her back pain increased, she went to Man's clinic on May 31. The defendant gave her a fruit drink with red wine. Based upon manners, she drank half a cup. Fifteen minutes later, she felt sleepy.

On that day, she began by giving the defendant a Japanese Reiki therapy before the defendant massaged her back. The defendant wanted her to take off her top clothes and bra. She lost consciousness. When she awoke, she found herself totally naked and the defendant having sexual intercourse with her. She said: "No." But the defendant said: "I love you" and asked her: "Do you love me?" She said no. Afterwards, the defendant took her to the bus stop. Y did not know that the defendant filmed the sexual intercourse.

Under cross-examination, another version emerged. The defense lawyer said that the two had discussed the herbal medicine Ayahuasca on social media. Y agreed to let the defendant "open the Third Eye" in order to heal her back pain. Y began by placing her hand close to the defendant's penis in order to open his Chakra. However, the defendant could not see the "transparent colors and images." So Y told him to take off his pants so that she could put her hand directly on his penis in order to transmit energy. Afterwards when the defendant massaged Y's back, Y gave permission for the defendant to film. The two sat on the bed to conduct mental conversation. With Y's consent, the two engaged in sexual intercourse. The defense lawyer said that when Y left, she made no attempt to hail the police for help. Before getting on the bus, she even gave the defendant a goodbye kiss.

Y agreed that she opened the "Third Eye" for the defendant. But she said that she did not touch his penis. She also did not consent to sexual intercourse. She explained that the defendant was taller and stronger than her, so she acted friendly so that she would not be harmed. When she went back to her boyfriend's home, she told him what happened. The boyfriend called an ambulance to take her to the hospital and tell the police.

(Oriental Daily) May 15, 2017.

The defendant Man Yiu-fai testified that Y came to his clinic at 730pm on May 31, 2016. Y said that she is experienced pains due to her unbalanced legs. So he gave Y a drink, which is concocted from banana and orange juice with red wine and vodka-soaked sleeping medication. Y said that she can't drink alcohol, but she still drank this alcoholic concoction. Man Yiu-fai said he laid down on the bed so that Y can open his Third Eye. Y said that the process will allow him to see other objects and their colors. Y put her hand on his hand and made various sounds. He felt warm all over his body as well as being dizzy. At the time, they were both clothed. Afterwards, he massaged Y on the neck, waist and pelvis. At the time, Y was naked on top.

After the massage, he chatted with Y. They looked each other in the eye, embraced and kissed. Then they engaged in sexual intercourse. No condom was used. He admitted that he inserted his penis into Y's vagina for about a minute. But he thought that the relationship was moving too quickly and his penis softened. The sexual intercourse stopped. They put on their clothes and left together. He escorted Y to the bus stop. Before getting on the bus, Y gave him a goodbye kiss.

The defendant said that Y did not say to start sexual intercourse. He asked Y: "Can we start?" Y nodded. During the sexual intercourse, Y cooperated very naturally. Afterwards, he professed love to Y. Y explained that it was his love that made him warm and tense when his Third Eye was opened.

The defendant admitted that he took videos secretly while he massaged Y. The reason that he did this was that he had been accused of sexual assault against X. He bought this watch from Taobao, and took videos in order to prove that what he did was proper. Y was aware that he filmed the massage. He forgot whether he told Y that the watch was still filming when the two were engaged in sexual intercourse.

According to police officer Lai Kwok-fai, he took the defendant back to the clinic after taking down the videotaped statement. At the clinic, the defendant admitted that he laced Y's drink with the so-called "date-rape drug." The police found some pills and condoms as evidence. The defendant was also charged with possession of restricted dangerous drugs.

(SCMP) May 23, 2017.

A Hong Kong court found a health consultant guilty on Monday of raping a German tourist after overpowering her with a date rape drug two years ago.

The High Court previously heard the woman, then 23, fell asleep after drinking a “fruit smoothie” laced with Flunitrazepam, and woke up to find herself naked, with Man Yiu-fai raping her. Man did not react as the seven-member jury of four men and three women returned the unanimous verdicts after eight hours of deliberation on one count of rape and another of administering drugs to obtain or facilitate unlawful sexual act.

The jury also unanimously cleared him of an indecent assault charge in relation to a Hong Kong woman, who claimed to have lost consciousness after Man gave her two cups of drinks in December 2014. When she woke up, she found her upper body naked and her underpants pulled down, while Man’s face was close enough to kiss hers.

He was similarly accused of drugging the woman with intent to stupefy or overpower her to enable him to commit “an unlawful sexual act”.

But deputy High Court judge Mr Justice Michael Stuart-Moore made a surprise direction for the jury to acquit Man on that charge after jurors sought further explanation on the definition of indecent assault, which led to prosecutors realising that “unlawful sexual act” did not include their case of indecent assault under the Crimes Ordinance.

“It turns out all of us are at fault for failing to realise that [an] unlawful sexual act can only mean sexual intercourse or other serious acts like buggery,” the judge said after the jury retired on the ninth day of trial. “I direct you to acquit.”

Rape carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, while the other charge is punishable by 14 years in jail.

Mitigation and sentencing are scheduled for July 5, pending the victim’s impact assessment report.

The case centred on a powerful hypnotic and sleep-inducing drug named Flunitrazepam that is legally marketed as Rohypnol.

The court previously heard the German tourist, who regularly visited Hong Kong to see her boyfriend, was introduced to Man through a friend after complaining of back pain.

During a visit to his Mong Kok office on May 31, 2015, the woman was offered a cup of “black, thick liquid” with an alcoholic smell that resembled a fruit smoothie.

Before she could finish it, her body became too heavy to control and her attempts to call for help came out as whispers. She was then raped, with Man secretly filming it on his wristwatch.

The defence had argued the woman consented to sexual intercourse after he offered her a massage with only her underpants on. She also admitted to touching his abdomen while his trousers were lowered to perform a Japanese relaxation massage technique known as reiki.

(Oriental Daily) July 5, 2017.

Today, Man Yiu-fai was sentenced to 12 years in jail on one count of rape and another of administering drugs to obtain or facilitate unlawful sexual act. The judge listed five factors in his ruling:

(1) the defendant used his professional status to provide physical therapy, including asking victim Y to fill out a medical questionnaire to cause her to believe that he would act professionally.

(2) the defendant used the date-rape drug on Y, not only causing her to fall asleep but to lose partial memory afterwards.

(3) The defendant added Quetiapine to increase Y's sleepiness. Quetiapine is used to treat psychiatric illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The defendant's claim that Quetiapine showed up in a South American psychedelic medication that he used was nonsensical.

(4) The defendant did not use a condom during sexual intercourse, causing victim Y to be very worried.

(5) The defendant used a camera disguised as a digital watch to film the sexual intercourse in a very perverse manner. Previously, the defendant had done the same to victim X, whose case was rescinded due to a technicality.

Eventually, the count of administering drugs to obtain or facilitate unlawful sexual act led to 6 months, and the count of rape led to 10 years. Four of those years were allowed to be served concurrently. Thus the total jail time was 12 years.

(Apple Daily) June 16, 2017.

On May 24 2015, Chief Executive CY Leung attended a function organized by the Arts Development Council. League of Social Democrats and other organizations protested. Defend Hong Kong movement leader Fu Chun-chung led his group to counter-protest and got into a quarrel with Leung Kwok Hung (League of Social Democrats). During this time, Fu's mobile phone fell out of his backpack onto the ground without his knowledge.

At the time, 24-year-old protestor Chung Chun-hei picked up the phone and handed it to Leung Kwok-hung. Leung asked loudly whose phone it was several times. When nobody answered, Leung left the phone on top of a garbage bin. Afterwards Chung went back and took the mobile phone.

On June 9, 2015, the police went to the home of Chung with a search warrant. They found the mobile phone plus two Octopus cards of unknown ownership. Chung admitted to the police that he "found these objects." He admitted to being greedy and took the Sony mobile phone for his own use.

The police also searched Chung's computer and found Fu Chun-chung's photos and telephone book.

In court today, Chung Chun-hei pleaded to one count of theft. In mitigation, the defense said that Chung was a real estate agent. After being arrested, his company advised him to quit. Since then, he has been working as a car washer. During the two years awaiting trial, Chung has been under a great deal of pressure. The defense presented two letters from District Councilors on behalf of Chung. Sha Tin district councilor Chan Kwok-keung said that Chung is enthusiastic about community work and states that he is willing to hire Chung as his aide.

The magistrate pointed out that mobile phone contained a lot of personal information which would be a tremendous loss for the owner. Sentencing will take place on June 29, 2017.

(Sing Tao Daily) June 29, 2017.

The magistrate said that the probation report was positive, showing that the defendant was remorseful, reflective and supported by his family. But the recommendation of 80 to 160 hours of community service by the probation officer was too lenient with respect to the seriousness of the crime of theft. Therefore the magistrate imposed 200 hours of community service.

Internet comments:

- Fucking idiot! Does he realize that mobile phones can be tracked down by GPS information. When you find a phone, you should rip out the phone card and sell it immediately and anonymously at Sin Tat Plaza (Mongkok)!

- If I knew that this mobile phone belongs to Fu Chun-chung, I would have tossed it into the ocean.

- The judge should impose a very light sentence on this young person who has a great future ahead of him. Besides, it is not a crime to care about Hong Kong. How about the minimum 80 hours of community service?

(Oriental Daily) July 11, 2017.

On August 23, 2016, there was a Legco election forum at Hong Kong ICC. After the forum, Hong Kong Localism Power candidate Ho Chi-kwong got into an argument with supporters of Raymond Wong. The police maintained order while the two sides jostled with each other. Afterwards, the police arrested Civic Passion members Chu Po-sang and Lee Ching-hei. Chu was charged with one count of assaulting a police officer.

According to the presentation of facts, the police officer was holding Chu when a masked man came up from behind to pull the police officer away by the right shoulder. The police officer was pulled backwards. Another police officer came over to help, but the masked man punched this other police officer in the right and left face. At this time, Chu pushed aside the police officer who was holding him and fled. Afterwards, the police found the video from the incident and identified Chu. Under caution, Chu admitted his deed and professed remorse.

At the time of the incident, Chu did not have a criminal record. His lawyer said that Chu has withdrawn from all political organizations and activities and will devote his time to being a fan of the Taiwan celebrity Miss Chicken Cutlet. The magistrate said that this was not a justification. The lawyer said that he brought this up to show that Chu will not repeat this mistake.

The magistrate said that Chu took advantage of the chaos to assault a police officer. Since police officers should be protected, Chu must be sent to jail. The verdict was 4 weeks in jail effective immediately.

The case of the masked man Lee Ching-hei will be heard at a later date.

Video of incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AySMEXmtItw.

(Oriental Daily) August 8, 2017.

Lee Ching-hei pleaded not guilty to two counts of assaulting police officers. The defense said that they will dispute the identity of the attacker, and that they will produce an eyewitness to prove that Lee Ching-hei was not at the scene at the time.

(Oriental Daily) November 27, 2017.

During the Occupy Central period, police inspector Sze Hang-kam used his job to access information on police officers "who kept provoking citizens." He posted information on two police officers from the Police intranet to social media. The police investigated, arrested him and went to his home to search for evidence. They found 271 child pornography videos/photos on his home computer and external hard disk. Today, the magistrate found Sze guilty of possession of child pornography.

The magistrate said that the defendant purchased the home computer between 2007 and 2008. In 2014, he changed his password. This means that he is the only user for that computer. With respect to the defendant saying that the police framed him, the magistrate said that there was no evidence to indicate that the police was hostile towards him.

(SCMP) November 27, 2017.

A Hong Kong police inspector who claimed his fellow officers had planted child pornography on his computer because of his pro-democracy views failed to convince a judge of his claim on Monday.

Tony Sze Hang, 31, was convicted at the District Court of one count of being in possession of child pornography.

Returning his verdict, Judge Timothy Casewell said it was “speculation that he was so much of a problem” that other officers would have framed him.

The inspector pleaded guilty to another count of accessing a computer with dishonest intent before the trial took place. He admitted leaking his colleagues’ personal details to an Occupy movement group on Facebook in 2014.

At trial, he testified that since the start of the investigation, he had been bombarded with offensive text messages from his colleagues, whom he suspected might have set him up. But the judge said on Monday: “The messages never went beyond an expression of opinion.”

Casewell also said Sze’s superiors might have removed the inspector from the front line over disciplinary hearings relating to politically charged matters. But the judge, citing internal reports, said his superiors appeared to have taken a tolerant approach.

There was therefore no basis and opportunity for Sze’s colleagues to frame him, Casewell said. Nor did he find any hostility on the part of the superiors against the inspector.

The judge remanded Sze, and sought psychological reports on the inspector. 

The married father is to be sentenced on December 11 for both offences.

The court heard the force began to look into Sze in November 2014, after they found images of the law enforcement agency’s phone book that contained details of two officers on the internet. The images were posted on a Facebook group set up for Occupy protesters to publicly identify people regarded as acting unfairly against the movement.

Sze was later invited to help in the investigation of the Facebook group postings, during which a Lenovo computer and an external hard drive seized from his home were found to have contained obscene materials.

Delivering his verdict, Casewell accepted the prosecution witnesses, comprising officers who handled the devices, as reliable and credible. He believed the devices had been “properly seized and properly sought” with no evidence of tampering.

During the trial, Sze contended that guests to his home who had visited before might have accessed his computer, including his brother-in-law from the mainland. But the judge said the “only reasonable inference” to be drawn was that Sze had been the sole user of the computer because it had been protected by a password.

The court had heard Sze was transferred to administrative duties before the present offence, following internal disciplinary proceedings. One involved his support online for Alpais Lam Wai-sze, a local primary schoolteacher who had criticised police and stirred controversy for hurling profanity at officers in 2013.

Another disciplinary proceeding focused on the inspector’s posting online a photo showing officers during the Occupy protests being given lunchboxes and accusing the force of giving them raw meat.

“Hang in there, Sze Hang,” his supporters at the court’s public gallery yelled on Monday before he was taken away from the dock. 

(Wen Wei Po) December 12, 2017.

The prosecution said that the police found that a user named "Tonic Shepherd" had posted to the Anti-Occupy-Central-People Identification group on Facebook the intranet telephone book information with the noted: "According to those present at the scene, police officers PC87xx and PC13xxx continuously provoked citizens at the scene. If you know of any other police officers who engage in provocation or use of force, please remember to note their ID's and take photos. Thank you!"

The police found that somebody had accessed the desktop computer at the North Point Police Station to access the intranet directory information on those two police officers. At the time, the defendant was on duty there.

On December 1, the police went to the defendant's office to investigate. They found out that the defendant's mobile phone can log into the account of Facebook user "Tonic Shepherd." The defendant was arrested on February 2.

In mitigation, the defense presented 12 letters. The parents of the defendants said that the four generations of their family have lived together and they cannot bear the idea of separation now. They pleaded for a lenient sentence.

Legislative Council Eddie Chu Hoi Dick wrote a letter to say that the defendant leaked the information not for personal gain but to give support to others in terms of political position. He said that the defendant had been subject to a disciplinary hearing for supporting teacher Alpais Lam.

(Ta Kung Pao) December 11, 2017.

The defense pleaded that there is no evidence to suggest that the defendant kept the child pornography materials for personal gain or distribute/produce those materials. The defendant said that this case has caused him to lose everything that he had.

The judge said that the defendant betrayed the trust and damaged the police force in the eyes of the public. The judge sentenced Sze to 27 months in jail.

(The Standard) February 15, 2017.

Seven police officers were found guilty yesterday of assaulting Occupy Central protester Ken Tsang Kin-chiu. But they were cleared of the more serious charge of causing grievous bodily harm. The seven were remanded in custody until sentencing on Friday.

District Court judge David Dufton ruled that the injuries to Tsang, although extensive, did not constitute grievous bodily harm. But he was satisfied they amounted to actual bodily harm. "The prosecution have proved all the elements of the offense of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against each defendant beyond reasonable doubt," he said.

Anyone found guilty of causing actual bodily harm is liable to three years' imprisonment, while those convicted of common assault face up to one year's imprisonment. The original charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The defendants did not give evidence or call any witnesses.

Tsang, part of a group of pro-democracy protesters, was involved in a clash with police outside government headquarters during the Occupy Central movement in 2014. In the early hours of October 15, police carried Tsang, who was handcuffed, to a dark corner of the nearby Tamar Park and dumped him on the ground. Detective sergeant Pak Wing-bun, 42, then began "stabbing, stamping and kicking" him.

Officers Lau Hing-pui, 38, Chan Siu-tan, 31, Kwan Ka-ho, 32, and Wong Wai-ho, 36, also joined in and kicked Tsang.

The assault was captured on footage by TVB, Apple Daily, ATV and Now TV as well as a police video team. Despite an objection from the defense on submitting footage from news media as evidence, the court ruled that all audiovisual evidence was authentic and accurately depicted events.

The judge agreed with the inference drawn that the protester was "carried to the corner to be assaulted." Although chief inspector Wong Cho-shing, 48, and senior inspector Lau Cheuk-ngai, 29, did not take part in the assault, they were also convicted. Judge Dufton believed the duo "did encourage and support [the] unlawful violence" by watching their colleagues assault the activist. "Every police officer has a duty to prevent the commission of a crime, even by fellow police officers," he said. "[Their] failure to intervene is evidence of encouragement to carry out the assault."

Chan was convicted of an extra count of common assault for slapping Tsang on the face twice in a room in Central Police Station.

Tsang sustained injuries to the left side of his neck, left shoulder and clavicle, left flank and right flank, as well as bruises on his chest and back.

(EJ Insight) February 16, 2017.

There are clever marketing gimmicks and then there are “clever” marketing gimmicks. The difference, as in the case of Schick, is whether you want to please the critics of the police at the expense of their fans.

On Tuesday, Schick, a distant second to Gillette in the personal care line, made an interesting post on its Facebook page saying there is something more to celebrate on Valentine’s Day. The post brought up famous singer Paula Tsui, whose famous hit song Jubilant has become an anthem for an anti-climactic political event (say, Carrie Lam not winning the chief executive election). Interestingly, it did not say what exactly we should be celebrating but we can glean from the hashtag link to no less than the conviction of seven policemen for assault on activist Ken Tsang.

The issue has been deeply divisive between supporters and critics of the police.

The original post attracted a few thousand “likes” but it was particularly disturbing to Speak Out HK, a group from the pro-establishment camp. A message posted on the group’s Facebook’s page by a certain Miso Cheng said it was very disappointing – and disgusting – “that your administrator representing Schick’s brand and identity has used such an insult”. “If your company is using this for sales and marketing strategy to enhance market share, traffic and revenue, I would say that you are doing it by inciting others and dividing society,” Cheng wrote. “My family will stop spending a dime on your products.”

Schick, a 91-year-old company, has been owned by Energizer since 2003. Energizer also owns Eveready, among others. To avoid what could potentially become another Lancome debacle, Schick quickly bowed to the complaints.

In its latest Facebook appearance, it retracted its earlier posts, saying it is “aware that our social media activity on Valentine’s Day may have inadvertently caused some concerns with its link to breaking news of the day. It was certainly not our intent to cause any upset or distress and we apologise if that was the case. We would like to reassure our consumers that, with our presence in Hong Kong of over 20 years, Schick is focused on product innovation and improvement and we strive to provide Hong Kong consumers with a high-quality shaving experience.”

The retraction attracted 500 “dislikes” from Facebook fans who were disappointed at the U-turn and maintained that there is nothing wrong with the administrator.

Well, it is difficult to make both sides happy.

Internet comments:

- Hey, everybody knows that Schick will eventually delete the post, because the company mission is not to generate political controversy. Here is the screen capture of the original Schick HK Facebook post:


Schick HK
It took a long time, but we ask Ms. Paula Tsui (to sing her song of joy)
#Good_awesome
#I have waited a long time for this day
#You didn't do anything wrong but you will have to go to jail
#Valentine's Day
#Date on February 14
Today there is another kind of celebration besides Valentine's day

- The second and the last paragraphs justify nothing. You should have hired a more sensible digital marketer after so many other incidents which did nothing but damaging the brands. I don't give a damn about your digital marketer's own political beliefs but the post came out under YOUR BRAND. Tough luck, can't be undone. Gillette for life. Or Braun. Or Phillips. Or a beard.

- If you didn't delete your post and apologize, the Blue Ribbon dogs who have no backbones will still continue to buy your products.
But if you delete your post and apologize, all Hongkongers with backbones will boycott you.
The original public relations person was not fucking stupid; any public relations person who decided to kneel down to the Blue Ribbon dogs is fucking stupid.

- What the fuck is wrong with you! Not a single word in the original post referred to anything, so why do you have to delete the post? Self-censorship? If you hire someone to administer your Facebook but you don't have faith in his/her actions, you should do it yourself.

- Your extreme reaction shows that you are very worried about your position in the mainland Chinese market. You are worried that what happened in Hong Kong could lead to a consumer boycott in mainland China. Well, so did you remember to post the apology on their mainland Weibo/Weixin in simplified Chinese characters?

- Previously, your idea of Facebook marketing was something like.


Is it fair?
Even if you maintain a good beard, you are still going to be beaten.

- I switched from Gillette to Schick on account of this previous Facebook post. I am now switching back to Gillette.

- More great marketing from Schick:

Why don't you shave your beard first
[Avery Ng, chairman of the League of Social Democrats]
"We don't want the August 31 resolution
Universal suffrage should be implemented in all of China"

- This is a classical public relations disaster in which a company manages to offend all sides (see Lancôme).

- DigDeeper Facebook

Seeking information to locate the ex-administrator over at Schick (HK)
It's you! You have a feel for locating material,  you are humorous, you dare to speak, you are courageous, you are a firefly in the darkness, you are a once-in-a-century genius.
We are presently looking for a social media expert. If you have been dismissed, or if you are being oppressed by the old farts and are disheartened, then congratulations to you because you will have a brand new place to express yourself. We guarantee to you that you will receive higher pay here.
Please disseminate this notice broadly.

- (The Stand News)

Attn: Marketing Department of Schick Headquarters

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am very disappointed about the removal of a post published on Schick Hong Kong facebook page on 14 Feb 2017, which actually reflected the views of many Hong Kong people and should not have been deleted.

On 14th Feb, seven Hong Kong police officers were sentenced to two years in prison for assaulting a pro-democracy activist. Most Hong Kong people think that this sentence upholds righteousness.

On that day, your Hong Kong facebook page published a post, and the copy was “Besides today is Valentine’s Day, there is one more thing to celebrate”. It made no direct reference to the above case, but definitely it was talking about it. Actually this post was smart and humorous, and stirred up a lot of positive feedback and should have raised up the public's brand preference towards your brand.

But later on the same day, your Hong Kong facebook page deleted the post. This makes us - fans of Schick very disappointed. The perpetrators should be punished, whether they are police officers or not. Your Hong Kong facebook page actually did a good job by publishing that post. I hope that Schick Hong Kong page can keep speaking out for the people, otherwise the brand will no longer be attractive to us.

(The above letter will also be published on Madman Monologue, a Facebook page dedicated to the advertising industry of Hong Kong.)

Yours faithfully,

Editor-in-chief Madman Monologue

(SCMP) February 16, 2017.

The Department of Justice will follow up on abusive comments made about a judge on social media platforms after the judiciary expressed serious concern. While government statements did not specify the relevant court case or judge concerned, the response came two days after seven police officers were convicted of assaulting activist Ken Tsang Kin-chiu during an Occupy protest in 2014. The seven men will be sentenced on Friday at the District Court. Judge David Dufton’s verdict received a mixed response on social media, with some police supporters posting insulting criticism and abuse.

Two prominent Facebook posts by film director Clifton Ko Chi-sum drew more than a thousand comments.

“Yellow-ribbon judges favoured troublemakers in Hong Kong,” he wrote, referring to the symbolic colour of the pro-democracy civil disobedience movement. “Localist, pro-independence rioters commit arson, assault police, vandalise public property, dog judge rule leniently, or even acquit them, showing absolute favouritism.”

In another post he said: “Which Hong Kong law said we cannot criticise judges?”

Portraits of Dufton were posted on other Facebook pages, with captions accusing the judge of “messing up” Hong Kong.

In light of these recent comments, a judiciary spokesman said: “The judiciary regards it as a matter of serious concern and has referred the matter to the Department of Justice to follow up.”

A department spokesman said it would take “suitable” action.

“The Department of Justice reiterates that judicial independence is the most important ring within the rule of law,” he told the Post. “Members of the public have the right to express their opinions towards court rulings and relevant matters within the permitted scope under the law ... but they must respect judicial independence at the same time and not maliciously attack judges or perform any behaviour that will harm the rule of law.”

The spokesman noted that public opinion ought to avoid being possibly seen as exerting pressure towards the courts or individual judges, especially when commenting on ongoing cases to avoid affecting the healthy development of judicial independence and the rule of law.

A police spokesman said the force had yet to receive any public complaints or a referral from the department. But he said officers would keep an eye on online remarks and take action accordingly if they suspected offences had been committed.

At the ceremonial opening of the legal year last month, Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma Tao-li called for public restraint, noting that judges were not immune to criticism and that comments ought to be informed and measured.

Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung said on the same occasion that he had noticed worrying signs of people overstepping the mark in criticising court rulings, including personal attacks on judges, and that such abuse must be stopped.

Internet comments:

- Clifton Ko Chi Sum's Facebook

Yellow Ribbon judges favor anti-Hong Kong troublemakers. Localist pro-independence rioters commit arson, assault police, vandalise public property, dog judges impose lenient sentences, or even acquit them, showing extreme favoritism.

The lawyer Wong Kwok-tung said that while what Ko Chi-sum said may not constitute contempt of court, it is definitely contempt of the law.
Wong Kwok-tung, you are wrong. I respect the law greatly. I merely don't trust biased judges.

Which Hong Kong law says that "judges shall not be criticized."

A judge is someone who issues a fair verdict
A dog judge is someone who issues an unfair verdict
Make your classification accordingly.

The more you want to silence my voice, the more I will speak out:
The morale of the Hong Kong Police cannot be sullied.

Here is the story of a film that I want to make:
A woman was raped. She went back into the alley and kicked the rapist in the balls. Both were arrested by the police ...
The rapist was sentenced to five weeks in jail, with instant bail to wait for the appeal.
The woman was sentenced to two years in jail for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, with the sentence to begin immediately.
Even if she was raped, she cannot take personal revenge based upon the heated emotions of the moment.
The rapist also said that the woman should apologize to him.
More importantly, nobody can discuss or criticize my film story, because I am the director! Ha ha!

- (HKG Pao) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. March 18, 2017.

We don't want additional considerations; we only want fair trials. But over the past 2 years, we have barely been able to find any normal judgments. How abnormal have judgments become? Here are some random examples that come to mind.

Example 1: During Occupy Central, a woman launched 7,400 attacks against the Hong Kong Police website. Judge Wong Sung-hao said: "The defendant merely pressed one button." He dismissed the charge.

Example 2: Legislative councilor Hui Chi-fung assaulted a security guard during a District Council meeting. The magistrate sentenced him to probation. Hui appealed the sentence. Judge Cheung Wai-ling said that Hui is "a good person" without violent tendencies, and she removed the probation order.

Example 3: For the sake of fun, a man filed 8 false police reports (on burglary, robbery and unconscious persons) over 2 days to test police efficiency. Magistrate Law Tak-chuen said that the case did not incur police overtime. Since the police are paid to show up for their shifts whether there were false police reports or not, Law said that the defendant would not have to pay for misuse of police time and fined him only $8,000 for the crime.

Over the years, we have seen many such cases whose outcomes depend on the particular magistrates/judges assigned. Rule-of-law is unsteady, but it all began with the magistrates/judges themselves.

- (Apple Daily) Open Letter to Ko Chi-sum. By Kevin Yam. April 15, 2017.

At around 930am on February 14, the Hong Kong District Court found the seven police officers guilty of assaulting the social activist Ken Tsang to cause bodily damage. At 1:33pm, you posed on your Facebook: "Yellow Ribbon judges favor anti-Hong Kong troublemakers. Localist pro-independence rioters commit arson, assault police, vandalise public property, dog judges impose lenient sentences, or even acquit them, showing extreme favoritism."

After you published your views, someone noted that your words constituted contempt of court. At 515pm, you responded: "The Yellow Zombies want to frame me with those worlds. Risible! Which word above is about the court case that was decided today? Which word is "contempt of court"?" At 937pm, you said too: "I am not stupid. I did not discuss the court case today." When you did a newspaper that night, you emphasized that you have the freedom of expression to say those things.

There is surely freedom of speech in society. The dealings or verdicts in court can be criticized. But in order to defend the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, the Hong Kong and overseas courts have stated in many cases that if a person expresses certain opinions that damage the authority of the courts or judges, or interfere with the independence of the judiciary in the absence of adequate evidence, then this is criminal contempt of court. Your words on Facebook on February 14 clearly constitutes criminal contempt of court.

Firstly, just because your words did not refer to any specific verdict does not mean that you are not in contempt, because the definition of "contempt of court" is not tied to any specific verdict. Without any evidence, you accuse judges of making rulings based upon personal political views ("Yellow Ribbon judges favor anti-Hong Kong troublemakers."). With evidence, you called the judges "dog judges." The Facebook post drew more than 1,000 Facebook LIKE's, and the commentators followed your example to insult the courts and judges. Isn't this speech that damage the authority of the courts?

Secondly, you openly stated that you are not "stupid" because you did not mention the court case of that Day. This showed that you clearly intended to expound on the verdict of the seven police officers. You think that you are smart, and that you can find a legal loophole by just making a generalized statement of the judiciary. Isn't this speech that damage the authority of the judiciary?

Thirdly, if you did not intend to so, your negligence still constitutes contempt of court. You are a well-known member of the entertainment industry. Your production company says that you have more than 10 job titles. You have received an honorary medal from the Hong Kong government. Your Facebook page is LIKE'd by more than 27,000 users. Can you say that your speech has no influence? But you still end up slurring the judges. What is this but negligent contempt of court? ...

I call on you to publicly retract your words and apologize. Otherwise, I wish you good luck. If an influential person like you can ignore the advice of the Justice Secretary and publicly hold the court in contempt without being prosecuted, then I wish Hong Kong good luck.

I wish you a booming business and make a lot of money.

- Kevin Yam is with the Progressive Lawyers Group (see Freedom of Speech and Scandalising the Court - Submissions of the Progressive Lawyers Group).

- If Ko Chi-sum is going to be prosecuted for saying "dog judge" over a court verdict, then the number of other people in line for the same treatment would be very very long.

Here is the first example that comes to mind (with video):

(Ming Pao) (YouTube) October 26, 2016.

Yesterday Raymond Wong Yuk-man was sentenced to two weeks in jail for common assault (over throwing a glass cup at Chief Executive CY Leung during a Legislative Council Q&A session).

Magistrate Chu Chung-keung said that he had considered the case of League of Social Democrats member Chan Tak-cheung throwing an egg that hit Financial Secretary John Tsang. Chan was found guilty of common assault and sentenced to three weeks in jail.

Magistrate Chu Chung-keung said that while Raymond Wong claimed to be resisting in the Legislative Council, his was an act of violence. As a public figure who was a Legislative Councilor at the time, his action was violent and uncivilized. The court therefore must impose a deterrent penalty, and not just impose a fine. Since Raymond Wong did not submit anything in mitigation, it meant that he was not repentant and that would take away probation or community service as options.

The magistrate started off the sentence with three weeks in jail. Since Raymond Wong did not bring the cup to throw and he fortunately did not injure anyone, the sentence was reduced to two weeks.

After announcing the sentence, Magistrate Chu Chung-keung left the courtroom. The supporters of Raymond Wong began shouting and cursing inside the courtroom.

Raymond Wong emphasized that resistance inside the Legislative Council should not be subject to criminal prosecution. He criticized Magistrate Chu Chung-keung as "a through-and-through dog magistrate" (「徹頭徹尾嘅狗官」).

Now where the hell was Kevin Yam when Raymond Wong said that? Even if he missed that event, what does he say now that it has been brought out again and placed alongside Ko Chi-sum's statement?

- And if Kevin Yam is willing to drag Raymond Wong into this, I am willing to do search through the Lexis/Nexis/Wiser databases to find all other usage of "dog judges/magistrates" in order to make sure that justice is fully carried out against all of them. After all, selective enforcement is rule-of-man and we want rule-of-law with fair-and-equal enforcement.

- I can predict what Kevin Yam will do.

Media question: Raymond Wong said that the magistrate who sentenced him to 2 weeks in jail was a "through-and-through dog magistrate"? What is your reaction given what you said about Ko Chi-sum?

Yam response: I have not seen that statement before.

Media question: Here is the link in Ming Pao completed with a video.

Yam response: I will need time to review the facts first.

Media question [24 hours later]: Have you reviewed the facts of the Raymond Wong case?

Yam response: I have been really busy since, and I haven't had the time to do so.

... Yam will continue to be really busy for the rest of his life and he will never ever give a response.

- (HKG Pao) March 2, 2017.

On February 16, 2017, Kevin Yam accused Ko Chi-sum for contempt of court in Apple Daily. On February 24, current affairs commentator Lee Yuen-tze replied that Ming Pao that contempt of court should not be used to suppress freedom of speech. Kevin Yam responded that "unfounded invectives and accusations will undermine trust in the judiciary" and "rule-of-law and independence of the judiciary are being damaged without cause."

Lee Yuen-tze responded again in Ming Pao today. Lee said that the judicial system was not born fair and equal, and the people were not born to automatically trust the judicial system. Instead, the trust in the judicial system is the same as the trust in the police -- the people build up their trust with the judges making fair judgments in case after case. If the judiciary makes a series of judgments that the people don't agree with, the people won't trust the judiciary anymore. After Occupy Central in 2014, many people believe that the judiciary has shown a systematic bias in the judgments.

Kevin Yam had explained that he said nothing about Raymond Wong saying "Dog judge" because he and Wong are not fellow political travelers. Lee Yuen-tze said that this was a double standard, which is not merely the problem of the Progressive Lawyers Group convener Kevin Yam but also for the judiciary as a whole. The Progressive Lawyers Group, the Law Society and the Bar Association stated their views on Ko Chi-sum but they went missing on Raymond Wong. The public can draw their own conclusions about the differential responses.

Lee Yuen-tze said: "Defending freedom of speech cannot be done selectively. You must defend everybody's freedom of speech."

- (Sing Tao) May 31, 2016.

More than 50 supporters of Ken Tsang booed and called magistrate Lo Tak-chuen a "dog judge" after the verdict on Ken Tsang was announced. At the time, magistrate Lo was still inside the courtroom. There were shouts of "Are you kidding?" "Dog judge" "Justice is unfair" "Not in accordance with the law of the Heavens" "Damned dog judge" "May your whole family die" plus some unprintable obscene curses.

The Department of Justice said: "Based upon our initial understanding, certain members of the public expressed their opinions in court. At the time, the hearing was over and the presiding magistrate had left already. The Department of Justice will attempt to learn more about this incident and then seek the opinion of the Secretary for Justice in order to decide whether more action will be taken."

Nothing was ever done. Of course.

- (The Stand News) February 19, 2017.


Cai Xiaoxin:
I am willing to pay 10,000 RMB to those persons who beat up the bastard British "judge" David Dufton. I mean what I say."

Previously Cai Xiaoxin wrote: "Hong Kong has been returned to China for many years already, but the courts are still controlled by the British under the rules of the games established by Great Britain. When they show up in court, they have to wear wigs. What is this but extra-territorial rule of law?"

He added: "It is particularly irksome to see that the judge is British. The ass determines the brain, the position determines the ruling. In the British/American legal systems, precedents decided later rulings. In future riots, the police will be fearful. The Pandora's box of evil has been opened."

- Well, it is time for the Hong Kong Department of Justice to take immediate concrete actions against this clear threat against Judge David Dufton. Cai Xiaoxin must be immediately arrested and jailed for criminal contempt of court and/or perversion of the course of justice.

The minor obstacle is that Mr. Cai is a mainland Chinese resident. What can the Hong Kong Department of Justice do?

As everybody knows, cross-border law enforcement by sending the Flying Tigers Special Police Unit to snatch a mainland citizen (who happens to be the son of the former Shaanxi Military District Political Commissar) and sneak him back by boat to Hong Kong won't be popular.

Hong Kong and mainland China do not have a formal extradition treaty, but they have allowed informal extraditions. So far, mainland China have sent 174 mainland citizens to Hong Kong for crimes committed in Hong Kong while Hong Kong has sent 0 Hong Kong citizens to mainland China for crimes committed in mainland China. Yes, there was no typographical mistake. It is 0.

There is no point for mainland China to send Cai Xiaoxin to Hong Kong to serve a few years in jail for letting off steam against a British judge. If they did, there will be a public uproar in mainland China and the consequences will be the stoppage of all future extraditions until a formal mutual extradition agreement is in place.

- Here is another case:

(Oriental Daily) July 30, 2015.

Passion Times
Talk is useless, action is most practical!
Accused of assaulting a police officer during "Recover Yuan Long"
A man was sentenced today to four months in jail
Hong Kong traitor Judge Michael Chan Pik-kiu (photo in aim sight)
Watch your step!

- Here are the "universal standards": (Dictionary.law.com) Contempt of Court

n. There are essentially two types of contempt:

a) being rude, disrespectful to the judge or other attorneys or causing a disturbance in the courtroom, particularly after being warned by the judge;

b) willful failure to obey an order of the court. This latter can include failure to pay child support or alimony.

The court's power to punish for contempt (called "citing" one for contempt) includes fines and/or jail time (called "imposing sanctions"). Incarceration is generally just a threat and if imposed, usually brief.

Since the judge has discretion to control the courtroom, contempt citations are generally not appealable unless the amount of fine or jail time is excessive.

"Criminal contempt" involves contempt with the aim of obstruction of justice, such as threatening a judge or witness or disobeying an order to produce evidence.

Criticisms of judges and their verdicts/sentences are not covered here.

- (The Law Commission) Consultation Paper No 207. Contempt of Court: Scandalising the Court.

1. The offence of scandalising the court, also known as scandalising judges or scandalising the judiciary, is a form of contempt of court. It may be defined as publishing material or doing other acts likely to undermine the administration of justice or public confidence therein, and usually takes the form of scurrilous abuse of the judiciary or imputing to them corruption or improper motives. It is distinct from other forms of contempt, such as:

(1) publications likely to impede or prejudice particular proceedings;
(2) misbehaviour in court;
(3) breach of jury confidentiality.

2. The rationale for an offence of scandalising the court derives from the need to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice. In many ways, this need is particularly acute in a democracy, where the power and legitimacy of the judicial branch of government derives from the willingness of the people to be subject to the rule of law. In consequence, the public must have faith in the judicial system.

3. Yet, in a democracy, the public also has the right to speak freely about the exercise of power, which must include the freedom to criticise the judicial system and the judiciary. To this end, such criticism is regarded as “political speech” under the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore subject to the highest degree of protection, although such protection is not absolute. Furthermore, in a democracy where the judicial system enjoys high levels of public confidence, there might be greater room for criticism (whether unfounded or otherwise) because displacing that confidence by such criticism is less likely. Balancing this right to freedom of expression with the importance of upholding public confidence in the administration of justice is at the heart of the debate about the offence of scandalising the court.

...

40. As stated by Lord Denning MR:

Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.

It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in the press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken, and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or not.

...

71. Venkat Iyer, like Robertson and Nicol, argues that the offence has been over-used in Asian and Pacific Rim jurisdictions, and that this over-use amounts to political repression. However, he observes that there are a few recorded cases in which its use was thoroughly justified, making abolition undesirable. He cites the following examples.

(1) In Wong Yeung Ng v Secretary of Justice a newspaper was held guilty of contempt for describing some judges as “dogs and bitches”, “scumbags”, “public enemy of freedom of the press and a public calamity to the six million citizens of Hong Kong”, “British white ghosts” and “pigs”, and threatening to “wipe [them] all out”.

(2) In a then unreported case in South Australia, a radio presenter discussing a story about a magistrate invited his listeners to “smash the judge’s face in”.

The common feature of these two cases are that the abuse, while strong, was too generalised to support an action for defamation. Taken literally, the language used would amount to the offence of encouraging any of a range of offences of violence. If contained in a communication to the judges themselves, it could be prosecuted as a public order offence. The question is whether there ought to be sanctions for such conduct even if the language is intended and understood as mere rhetorical exaggeration and vulgar abuse: if so, the abolition of scandalising the court might indeed leave a gap in the law.

...

84. We provisionally propose that the offence of scandalising the court should be abolished without replacement. Consultees are asked whether they agree.

- (The Guardian) August 10, 2012. Scandalising the judiciary – or murmuring judges, as it is known in Scotland – has not been successfully prosecuted in England and Wales since 1931, but is more common in former colonies that have adopted the UK's system of common law.

- (Legislation.gov.uk) Crime and Courts Act 2013.

33. Abolition of scandalising the judiciary as form of contempt of court

(1) Scandalising the judiciary (also referred to as scandalising the court or scandalising judges) is abolished as a form of contempt of court under the common law of England and Wales.

How are you going to apply Common Law when the offense has been abolished from the books?

- R.v. Commissioner of Police, ex parte Blackburn (No. 2)

Lord Denning M.R.: ... Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself. It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in the Press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken, and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or not. All we would ask is that those who criticise us will remember that, from the nature of our office, we cannot reply to their criticisms. We cannot enter into public controversy. Still less into political controversy. We must rely on our conduct itself to be its own vindication.

Exposed as we are to the winds of criticism, nothing which is said by this person or that, nothing which is written by this pen or that, will deter us from doing what we believe is right; nor, I would add, from saying what the occa­sion requires, provided that it is pertinent to the matter in hand. Silence is not an option when things are ill done.

So it comes to this: Mr. Quintin Hogg has criticised the court, but in so doing he is exercising his undoubted right. The article contains an error, no doubt, but errors do not make it a contempt of court. We must uphold his right to the uttermost. I hold this not to be a contempt of court, and would dismiss the application.

- Universal standards: (Slate) May 28, 2016.

You know what’s presidential? Using 12 minutes of a campaign rally to criticize a judge who is overseeing civil litigation against your failed “education” venture. And that’s exactly what Donald Trump did in San Diego when he seemingly bored his audience with details about the ongoing case, specifically attacking U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel for being a “hater” and even speculating about what his ethnicity might be.

“The trial is going to take place sometime in November. There should be no trial. This should have been dismissed on summary judgment easily,” Trump said. “Everybody says it, but I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. He’s a hater. His name is Gonzalo Curiel.”

Curiel “is not doing the right thing. And I figure, what the hell? Why not talk about it for two minutes?” What followed was “one of his most personal attacks against an apolitical figure since becoming the presumptive Republican presidential nominee,” notes the Wall Street Journal. As part of his attack, Trump told his audience, which just moments earlier had chanted about the need to “build that wall,” that Curiel is “Mexican.”

“The judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great, I think that’s fine,” Trump said. “You know what? I think the Mexicans are going to end up loving Donald Trump when I give all these jobs, OK?” Curiel was born in East Chicago, Indiana.

“I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself,” Trump said. “I’m telling you, this court system, judges in this court system, federal court, they ought to look into Judge Curiel. Because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace, OK? But we’ll come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I’m president and I come back to do a civil case? Where everybody likes it. OK. This is called life, folks.”

- Cartoon: You are both for and against it.

Panel 1: (Before) I want to throw bricks and kill you Evil Cops!
Panel 2: (Before) Arse-licking judges dared to find justice warriors guilty!
Panel 3: (Now) I oppose violence! The police must obey the law and show forbearance!
Panel 4: (Now) Ko Chi-sum calls them "dog judges." This is simply contempt of the verdict!

- What is an example of "contempt of court" in Hong Kong? There was an explicit court order which was read out to the defendants to leave a site. The defendants were informed that they will face contempt of court charges otherwise. Still they refused to make way. They were arrested and charged with contempt of court.

(SCMP) November 10, 2015.

Police can now arrest Occupy Central protesters who defy bailiffs trying to clear their sit-in sites in Mong Kok and Admiralty, the High Court has ruled.

The court's authorisation for the bailiffs to get help from the police if necessary is a new addition to three interim restraining orders - on behalf of drivers' groups and the owner of a commercial building - in force for the past three weeks.

With the court's permission, the force could start removing barricades and defiant protesters from their occupied zone in Mong Kok as early as tomorrow, according to a police source.

The Department of Justice said yesterday that while the police would provide assistance in respect of the enforcement of the injunction orders, the Secretary for Justice might also "consider taking appropriate action against persons who may have committed the offence of criminal contempt".

In his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung extended the orders and said officers could remove or arrest people who ignored or insisted on breaching them.

They must, however, offer a brief explanation of the order at the point of arrest, Au wrote.

The judge explained that he allowed the police to step in because the rule of law and due administration of justice were at risk of being "seriously challenged and undermined", as some protesters had been openly disobeying and flouting the court orders.

"Under the rule of law, even if the defendants are of the view that a court order is wrongly granted, instead of simply disobeying it, they should first comply with it but seek to challenge and argue against that order in court," Au wrote.

Au's judgment means the applicants for injunctions against the Occupy movement do not need to return to the courts for further extensions of their orders.

The injunctions were first granted on October 20, to Chiu Luen Public Light Bus, the Taxi Association and the Taxi Drivers and Operators Association, for parts of Nathan Road to be cleared. The court also allowed Goldon Investment, owner of Citic Tower in Admiralty, to remove barricades blocking the building's entrances and exits.

The police source warned that protesters who still refused to move faced arrest for contempt of court. He said the Mong Kok protest zone was likely to be the first to be cleared, either Wednesday or Thursday. The source said enough manpower would be arranged to deal with any eventuality.

Outside court, solicitor Maggie Chan Man-ki, for the minibus drivers, said: "My clients only want to have the road back to do business."

(SCMP) January 6, 2015.

Twenty people would face charges of criminal contempt of court over a court-mandated clearance of the Mong Kok Occupy site in November, the Department of Justice told the High Court yesterday. They were arrested for obstructing bailiffs executing a court order granted to a transport firm to remove barricades obstructing Argyle Street. The arrests were made on November 25 as Chiu Luen Public Light Bus carried out a court injunction to reopen Argyle Street.

- The Justice Department is going to study the situation. If they decide to prosecute Ko Chi-sum (and Raymond Wong and a long list of others), they will bring the case before ... a judge in a court! Can we say "Conflict of Interest"?

- Epimenides paradox:

"Epimenides the Cretan says, 'that all the Cretans are liars,' but Epimenides is himself a Cretan; therefore he is himself a liar. But if he be a liar, what he says is untrue, and consequently the Cretans are veracious; but Epimenides is a Cretan, and therefore what he says is true; saying the Cretans are liars, Epimenides is himself a liar, and what he says is untrue. Thus we may go on alternately proving that Epimenides and the Cretans are truthful and untruthful."

Will we find a Hong Kong judge who says: "All Hong Kong judges are unfair"? Since that judge is a Hong Kong judge, he is unfair. Therefore his statement is unfair and therefore all Hong Kong judges are fair.

Alternately, will we find a Hong Kong judge who says: "All Hong Kong judges are fair"? Since that judge is a Hong Kong judge, he is fair and therefore all Hong Kong judges are fair. But what makes you think that you can trust him to tell the truth? Wouldn't an unfair judge lie?

- Some judges are unfair some of the time, but not all of them are unfair all of the time. Therefore we must not criticize any judge any time?

- The theory of Occupy Central is that if 10,000 people showed up to occupy Central, the police cannot arrest all of them and process them in a timely basis. The entire judicial system would be paralyzed. In like manner, the antidote here is for everybody to post "Dog judge" on social media.

Here is Anna Chan:

Hong Kong troublemaker yellow dog (westerner) judge! ... David Dufton
Western dog, helping the Chinese traitors to oppose China and cause chaos in Hong Kong.

- White Terror is truly alive and well in Hong Kong.


The Police Public Relations Branch has just called me to say that there must not be any banners or photos that are critical of judges at all future assemblies, or else they will make arrests immediately.

- Hong Kong Basic Law

Article 88
Judges of the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be appointed by the Chief Executive on the recommendation of an independent commission composed of local judges, persons from the legal profession and eminent persons from other sectors. 

Article 92 
Judges and other members of the judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be chosen on the basis of their judicial and professional qualities and may be recruited from other common law jurisdictions. 

- What is this "independent commission"? It is a black box operation with no oversight. Who is an "eminent person" anyway? Joshua Wong, Anson Chan, Martin Lee and others who are famous around the world?

- Judges being elected by other judges? Isn't it just naked nepotism?

- Why don't we try to adopt the American system to nominate/appoint judges? Since America is the greatest democratic country in world history, their system should be the universal standard. Moved to Hong Kong, it means (1) when there is an open judicial position, the Chief Executive nominates someone to the position; (2) the nominee is voted upon by the Legislative Council and confirmation requires a simple majority of the legislators present and voting.

- Thoughts on contempt of court:

Can a citizen criticize the court or the judge after a case is finished? Based upon the citizen's personal positions and knowledge, can he express his dissatisfaction?

What kind of world is this when, based upon personal positions and knowledge, a citizen can only express his satisfaction but never his dissatisfaction over a court verdict? Are we living in North Korea?

Why is it that when you say "dog judge", you may be charged with contempt of court?

While I fully respect the law, I have doubts about certain judges and their rulings. Why am I not allowed to feel that way?

Judges are humans who are fallible. About 20% of the rulings by the Court of First Instance will be overturned on appeal. So why can't I point out a glaring mistake?

Why is it that when you say "dog official" for the department/bureau chiefs including the Justice Secretary or even the Chief Executive, you don't have to worry about any consequences?

Why is it that you can call Donald Trump and Xi Jinping pigs, but you cannot call a Hong Kong district court temporary special magistrate a "dog judge"?

Why have people called the Legislative Councilors with names related to dogs, pigs, snakes, rats, chickens without any consequences?

Is the reason why judges cannot be criticized because they wear long black robes and funny white wigs?

If a judge didn't wear his long black robe and funny white wig, can a citizen criticize him?

If a citizen cursed out a westerner (who happens to be a judge in plain clothes at the time), is he still in contempt of court?

Are judges/magistrates the sole special privileged class in Hong Kong to whom any criticism will draw the Department of Justice to jump in and say that they are paying close attention and investigating?

Does the Department of Justice have so much spare manpower on hand? If so, then why aren't the leaders of Occupy Central still not charged with unlawful assembly dating back to October 2014?

Oh, it is so confusing! My head is going to explode ...

- Why can't we trust the courts? Here are the photos of the non-permanent judges on the Court of Final Appeal:

This is the Court of Final Appeal for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Why are the judges whities?

- There is a Chinese saying: 非我族類 其心必異 = Those who are not my race must be of different hearts and minds.

- (Gegugu.com) In most countries of the world, the judges are their own citizens. According to Basic Law Article 90,

The Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal and the Chief Judge of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be Chinese citizens who are permanent residents of the Region with no right of abode in any foreign country.

There is no nationality requirement on any other judges of the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative region. They don't have to be Chinese citizens, and they don't even have to be permanent residents of the Region. As long as you have some professional experience and qualification in Common Law nations such as the United Kingdom and Australia and you are recommended by an independent panel of current judges, you can become a judge or prosecutor here.

On February 4, 2016, HKSAR Chief Executive CY Leung appointed 17 persons to be the permanent and non-permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal. Of these only two are Chinese citizens who are permanent residents of Hong Kong. All others are of foreign or dual nationality.

In 2007, a mainland businessman was involved in a court case. He wrote an essay to reflect the situation: "There were nine judges who heard the case. Eight of these were non-Chinese. Of those eight, two were Australians and four were British. The main posts at the Security and Futures Commission and the Department of Justice were also occupied by Australians and British. Ten years after the handover, I finally recognized just what is meant by Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong."

At this time, we need to ask whether it is "One Country Two Systems, Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" or "One Country Two Systems, foreigners ruling Hong Kong"?

The continued colonization of the legal sector in Hong Kong was designed by the British colonial administration to maintain their grip after the handover. The British colonial administration refused to establish a School of Law in Hong Kong for so long, so that legal practitioners must come from elsewhere in the British Empire. In 1969, they finally allowed Hong Kong University to establish a Department of Law in the Faculty of Social Sciences.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Why foreign judges are critical to Hong Kong’s judicial system. By Dennis Kwok. April 10, 2017.

The hard left nationalists have a tendency to blame Hong Kong’s colonial past whenever things do not go their way. By now, the infiltration of Western influence and manipulation has become a recurrent theme in their rhetoric, used to stir up anti-colonial sentiments in Hong Kong, especially in the older generation who experienced Hong Kong as a British colony.

Thus when a foreign judge presided over the sensitive case of assault by seven police officers towards an Occupy Central protester, and later convicted the policemen to two years imprisonment, they naturally turned to foreign judges in Hong Kong as their new target.

Indeed, the common law tradition in Hong Kong is a legacy of our colonial past, and the practice of appointing foreign judges has been in place since colonial times. But today Hong Kong is no longer a British colony. Colonialism is long gone and the city has embraced its colonial history, moved on, and became a cosmopolitan city with its own values and culture.

Just as Hong Kong’s status changed when its sovereignty was transferred back to China in 1997, the significance of appointing foreign judges has also taken up a new meaning today. While the appointment of foreign judges may be a symbol of British control over our judicial system during colonial times, the common law system has now become an inseparable part of Hong Kong. Appointing foreign judges is now a means through which the independent judiciary draws on foreign talent and develops Hong Kong’s jurisprudence.

Foreign judges are undoubtedly critical to building Hong Kong’s international legal reputation and developing the law. Not only do foreign judges bring with them fresh insights and perspectives to our courts, having an international judiciary also demonstrates diversity and inclusion in our legal system, safeguarding and strengthening the rule of law.

Being able to attract foreigners to sit as judges in Hong Kong is also a reflection and acknowledgement of the city’s status in the international legal world. Facilitating international jurisprudential exchange between Hong Kong and other common law jurisdictions, this judicial exercise shows that Hong Kong is recognised as one of the leading jurisdictions in the world.

Just recently, two new non-permanent judges from overseas, Honourable Chief Justice French and Right Honourable Lord Reed, have been appointed to sit at the Court of Final Appeal, with their appointments unanimously supported by all 42 members present at the Legislative Council.


Right Honourable Lord Reed (L) and Chief Justice French (R). Photo: Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and High Court of Australia.

Both are highly qualified and of eminent reputation. Chief Justice French has been the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia since 2008, while Lord Reed has been a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom since 2011 and has also occasionally acted as an ad hoc judge of the European Court of Human Rights. It is without a doubt that their wealth of experience would be an asset to the Court of Final Appeal.

Not only are foreign judges an invaluable source of knowledge and wisdom to Hong Kong, they also play an important role in the operation of our understaffed judiciary.

As the legal maxim goes, “justice delayed is justice denied.” The heavy work burden of the judiciary has been a long-standing problem. Despite improvements in recent years, such as the shortening of waiting times for court hearings and enhancements in judges’ pay packages, judicial resources and manpower are still lacking, and this shortage of manpower will inevitably have an adverse impact on the rule of law.

Under such circumstances, there is a need to draw judicial talent from other common law jurisdictions to relieve the judiciary from the substantial amount of work. Apart from sharing their legal knowledge and experience with Hong Kong courts, it should not be forgotten that foreign judges are also a precious source of manpower from a practical viewpoint.

Hong Kong should not be bound by its colonial history, and should readily welcome the recruitment and appointment of foreign judges. The rhetoric by the hard left that foreign judges manipulate and influence the judiciary by making unfair decisions is completely unfounded. Judges are appointed in accordance with their judicial expertise as required by Article 92 of the Basic Law.

And just like any other judge, foreign judges uphold the rule of law based on their legal judgement on the law and evidence and nothing else.

- Instant poll: How do judges handle the Illegal Occupy Central versus Anti-Occupy?


33: Fairly and justly
13: Biased towards both
178: Secretly pro-Yellow, openly anti-Blue
2395: Citizens have no means of supervising judges, the judicial system has lost its effectiveness

- (SilentMajority.hk) February 15, 2017.

When the Yellow Ribbons launched their attacks against Ko Chi-sum, Internet users rose to their defense. "When citizens do wrong, the judges make the determination; when judges do wrong, who is going to make the determination? Judges are humans too. If everybody pays more attention to the actions and lives of these judges,  you will undoubtedly find many headline stories. So who is going to monitor and deal with them?"

According to Ming Pao, Ko Chi-sum said that his sense is that judges are sometimes biased in their judgments, with many cases not being ruled on the same basis. "I am not sure if some judges are Yellow Ribbons or not, but I feel that they might be." He also said: "Actually, is there any system to monitor and oversee these judges? Every other profession has such a system. I don't know how many judges are Yellow Ribbons. But citizens have their speculations and inclinations, and this should be discussed."

Ko Chi-sum said that the case is not yet done and so he won't make specific comments. He was merely expressing his feelings on the Internet. Is he worried that he will be charged with contempt of court? He said: "I have reviewed what I wrote. My words do not constitute contempt of law. Every citizen has the freedom of expression. It is a core value of our society to be able to express our feelings."

- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. February 28, 2017.

In the early 1990's, Citic Pacific chairman Larry Yung sued Next Weekly for defamation, specifically because a report described the plaintiff as being "more vicious than the dog of Wah Sau." The case became a dispute over the meaning of "dog."

Martin Lee SC represented Next Media in court. He explained to the foreigner judge that the dog is man's best and most reliable friend, so how can this be defamation?

Hongkongers obviously know that "more vicious than the dog of Wah Sau" is a Cantonese idiom referring to an extremely vicious person. Once up a time, there was a rich man named Wah Sau in Guangzhou (Canton). He owned so much land that it took three days to traverse his land holdings by foot. At his house, even the dogs ate fried rice, oysters and lean meat. Wah Sau even has a prison inside his home, equipped with instruments of torture. When a tenant fails to pay rent on time, Wah Sau would haul him into his private prison for torture, ranging from a beating to pulling the eyes out the sockets to being bitten to death by his dogs. Many poor people were bitten to death by his dogs. Thus came the saying "more vicious than the dog of Wah Sau."

Martin Lee SC obviously could not tell the foreign judge about Wah Sau and his dog. So he came up with a rarely used version: During the reign of the Guangxu Emperor, thieves and robbers roamed the land. A farmer named Wah Sau in Panyu (Guangzhou) kept a dog to defend his property. This dog was loyal and aggressive. Therefore Martin Lee SC told the foreigner judge that "more vicious than the dog of Wah Sau" is in fact an accolade and not defamation. In the end, this foreigner judge bought into the idea that "Wah Sau's dog" was a "good dog."

The two parties eventually settled out of court. Thus, according to this precedent set more than 20 years ago, "dog" is an accolade and not a derogatory descriptor.

Chapman To Facebook


Chapman To: Uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh uh.
The case of seven police officers assaulting Civic Party member Ken Tsang in a dark corner near a transformer station in Tamar Park during the Occupy period ended with the judge announcing that the defendants were not guilty of intentionally causing serious bodily harm to other persons, but they were guilty of the alternate charge of assaulting to cause bodily harm. In addition, the fifth defendant was found guilty of common assault. The defendants were remanded in custody.
Chapman To: Remanded into custody? Ouch! So they won't get a Valentine's Day dinner. Let me think about what I should eat tonight.

9UP News Facebook (note: spoof)

Chapman To: Remanded into custody? Ouch! So they won't get a Valentine's Day dinner. Let me think about what I should eat tonight.
Kristal Tin (in tears): Hubby ... I beg you not to open your filthy mouth! Do you want me to lose my job as well? ... When that happens, who is going to provide for the family?

- The Yellow Ribbon Entertainers: During Occupy Central, Chapman To was in the forefront. Last March, he also offered Facebook support to the movement to oppose the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement in Taiwan. In May this year, there were two films <Let go for love> and <Aberdeen> with Chapman To shown on mainland China. Chinese fans organized mass boycotts so that the box office receipts were dreadful. The production company of <Let go for love> acknowledged five days after the premiere that "Chapman To was immoral and we made the wrong choice." In the last film that he took part in on the mainland, <That's incredible>, his entire presence was replaced by another actor through computer-generated imagery (CGI) at a cost of 20 million RMB. Two to three years previously, Chapman To was already a controversial figure in mainland China. He cursed out mainlanders for their poor qualities and he arrogantly declared that he did not care for the mainland market. This caused his films to be shelved indefinitely. Even those films in which he had a cameo appearance were affected. Meanwhile his wife Kristal Tin still gets assignments at TVB. So she is the principal breadwinner for the family.

- (TVB) Excerpt from the drama series Destination Nowhere featuring Kristal Tin as the mother.

Daughter: Why is it that if I spend a little bit more money, you want to save it. What about him? He keeps squandering the money but you won't stop him. He has been spending your money all long. What are you so trashy? Is it the case that you cannot live without men?

(PopVote)

Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017

Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong (POP) and Centre for Social Policy Studies at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (CSPS) are commissioned by the “Citizens United in Action” (CUIA) to organize the “Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017” (“2017 CE Election Civil Referendum”), which consists of the following two stages:

  1. Civil Nomination Stage:

    From 16 to 31 January 2017, any person can indicate his intention to be a civil candidate of the “2017 CE Election Civil Referendum” by sending a “Letter of Intent” to POP by post. All persons who have completed the relevant registration procedures of being a civil candidate and all persons who have declared their intention to stand for the official 2017 CE election by 5pm of 4 February 2017, will be included in the civil nomination system of the “2017 CE Election Civil Referendum”.

    From 7 to 22 February 2017, all citizens of Hong Kong aged 18 or above can nominate one person to be a Civil Candidate via mobile web app or PopVote website.

    Any person who receives 37,790 nominations or more will become an official Civil Candidate of the “2017 CE Election Civil Referendum”. (Note: The total number of registered voters in Hong Kong is 3, 779, 085, and the requirement of 37,790 is 1% of the total number).
     

  2. Civil Referendum:

    All civil candidate(s) and official CE candidate(s) will be included in the “2017 CE Election Civil Referendum”. The voting motions are as follow: 

    i. Do you agree support or oppose Candidate A to be the next Chief Executive? 
    (support / oppose / abstain)

    ii. Do you agree support or oppose Candidate B to be the next Chief Executive? 
    (support / oppose / abstain)

    (so on and so forth)

    The support votes of a candidate are positive votes and the oppose votes are negative votes. The votes of each candidate are the net votes he/she received by subtracting the negative votes from the positive votes. The winning candidate is the one who has the largest number of net votes and the number of support votes must be more than the negative votes and abstain votes added together. There is a possibility that there may be no winning candidate.

Method of Civil Nomination: PopVote website or mobile web app
Civil Nomination date & time: 7 February 2017 (Tuesday) 10am to 22 February 2017 (Wednesday) 5pm

Methods of Civil Referendum: 1. PopVote website or mobile app, or 2. Physical polling stations
Civil Referendum date & time: 10 March 2017 (Friday) 12nn to 19 March 2017 (Sunday) 8:30pm
  Voter requirement: Hong Kong permanent residents aged 18 or above
  Verification information: Full HKID number of the voter and a mobile phone number which can receive SMS.


Results as of 04:00 February 14, 2017:

John Tsang, 8146
Leung Kwok-hung, 5349
Woo Kwok Hing, 2133
Carrie Lam, 133
Regina Ip, 86
Leung Shi-ho, 68
Woo Sai-chuen, 40
Kam Man, 26
Wong Yiu-suen, 8
Lau Chi-wing, 4
Wong Pak-ling, 1
Kan Wai-fun, 1

(Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data) February 13, 2017.

The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (“PCPD”) noted the recent media reports and discussions on the issues of personal data privacy and data security arising from the “Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017” (“the activities”) organised by Public Opinion Programme at The University of Hong Kong and Centre for Social Policy Studies at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, as commissioned by the “Citizens United in Action”, and was asked for clarification and views. Based on the public information of the activities, views of data security experts as quoted in media reports, and other facts gathered by PCPD so far, PCPD has the following preliminary observations to make.

The activities involve the collection of personal data of individuals, and there is a lack of transparency in setting out the details and objectives. It does not, in particular, state the differences in mechanism and procedures between the activities and what have been stipulated in existing laws, thereby misleading members of the public and prejudicing the public interest. The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong, Mr Stephen Kai-yi WONG, pointed out that, “Any person or organisation, who collects personal data based on the nature of a lawful practice or established mechanism, in particular one of significant interest to and impact on members of the public, but through means which are not in line with the law or mechanism without explaining the lawful basis for them, as a result of which participants may be misled, or that the data collected may lead to misuse or abuse, may contravene the Principle of Fair Collection under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (“Ordinance”).

Meanwhile, it is pointed out by some information technology organisations and experts that the “de-identification” technology adopted by PopVote on the personal data it collects can be easily interpreted and re-identified. The use of the related Telegram, the instant messaging programme, to verify a participant’s identity for voting is also questioned by some computer security experts. The existing privacy risks may not only result in irrecoverable fatal consequences, but also contravene the Data Security Principle under the Ordinance.

The PCPD strongly requests the relevant organisations to stop collecting personal data unfairly and the use of the related Telegram in the activities. Individuals should fully understand the privacy risks involved and consequences before participating. The PCPD has initiated compliance check for the case.

Note 1: Data Protection Principle 1 (Data Collection Principle) - Personal data must be collected in a lawful and fair way, for a purpose directly related to a function /activity of the data user. Data collected should be necessary but not excessive. Data subjects must be notified of the purpose and the classes of persons to whom the data may be transferred.

 Note 2: Data Protection Principle 4 (Data Security Principle) - A data user needs to take practical steps to safeguard personal data from unauthorised or accidental access, processing, erasure, loss or use.

(The Standard) February 14, 2017.

In a rare venture into politics, the privacy commissioner spoke out against the "civil referendum" spearheaded by Benny Tai Yiu-ting, asking the public to pay attention to privacy risks before taking part.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data issued a statement yesterday, in which it "strongly demanded" the organizers of the so-called "Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017" stop collecting personal data.

The Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong and Centre for Social Policy Studies at Hong Kong Polytechnic University have been commissioned by the group Citizens United in Action to organize the referendum.

The public can vote in two stages: the civil nomination stage and civil referendum stage. In the first stage, people can choose their pick of CE candidates via mobile web app or PopVote website. In the second stage, the public will vote on their favorite and their least preferred candidate.

Pro-democracy Election Committee members were recommended to take the public votes into consideration before they make nominations and vote.

The privacy watchdog said personal data collected on the website can be easily interpreted and re-identified. The use of instant messaging app Telegram to verify a participant's identity for voting has also been questioned by some computer security experts. "The existing privacy risks may not only result in irrecoverable fatal consequences, but also contravene the Data Security Principle under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance," Commissioner Stephen Wong Kai-yi said.

Citizens should learn about privacy risks and consequences before taking part in the civil nomination, his office said.

Internet comments:

- According to the PopVote Civil Nomination results as of 04:00 February 14, 2017,

50.9% John Tsang
33.4% Leung Kwok-hung
13.3% Woo Kwok-hing
0.8% Carrie Lam
0.1% Regina Ip

According to the Hong Kong Research Association (#672),
If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow, which of the following announced candidates will you support?

36%: John Tsang
35%: Carrie Lam
13%: Woo Kwok Hing
8%: Regina Ip

According to the Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey, Chinese University of Hong Kong (#669),
Who do you want as Hong Kong's next Chief Executive?

42.5%: John Tsang
28.2%: Carrie Lam
8.7%: Woo Kwok Hing
5.6%: Regina Ip

So it should be clear that the PopVote Civil Nomination results are not representative of the general population. At the Civil Nomination phase, you can still argue that nomination is not the same as voting to elect. But if the Civil Referendum shows the same kind of skew against Carrie Lam/Regina Ip, then PopVote is just another small-circle game.

-  Don't worry. They'll manage to stuff the ballot boxes when the time comes. The only traces left are the Hong Kong ID number (and there is free software (see example) that can generate random (but valid) Hong Kong ID numbers) and a mobile phone number (and there is telemarketing software that can generate random (but valid) mobile phone numbers).

- An audit means re-contacting the mobile phone user to verify the Hong Kong ID and how the person voted (if at all). But such an audit will be resisted because the privacy of personal data is of paramount importance. Of course.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) February 8, 2017. Pro-democracy lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung announced on Wednesday that he will enter the chief executive race if he receives 37,790 unofficial nominations from members of the public, representing one per cent of the registered electorate.

With one-third of the Civil Nomination period already elapsed, Leung Kwok-hung only has 5,349 nominations. It is time to mobilize the masses to stuff the ballot boxes!

- (Oriental Daily) February 14, 2017. Yesterday Citizens United in Action said that they will explain everything to the authorities in order to dispel doubts. Today Citizens United in Action issued a statement that they will halt the nomination process temporarily. They apologize to the citizens. They will meet with the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data to explain the uses of their data collection and understand the requirements before re-starting the process.

- This means that a certain number of days will be lost from the Civil Nomination period. Of course, they can always shift the goal post from 37,790 nominations to 3,779 nominations to issue a free pass to Leung Kwok-hung. (And tough luck for Woo Kwok Hing!).

- Cartoon of personal data thief

- (HKG Pao) February 13, 2017. Yesterday legislator Leung Kwok-hung gathered nomination signatures outside the Sha Tin MTR station. The citizens were filling out their Hong Kong ID numbers and mobile telephone numbers. Leung did not explain why these unofficial civil nominations require them to provide HK ID and mobile telephone data. Where is the information going to? Future crowdfunding campaigns? Commercial telemarketers? Telephone scammers?

- (Hong Kong Free Press) February 8, 2017. The referendum campaign is asking for HK$1.5 million worth of public donations, but it has only raised around HK$30,000 so far. In comparison, nearly 20,000 people donated over HK$4 million to Tsang’s fundraiser in just three days. “We will still go ahead with the poll even if we fail to raise HK$1.5 million,” Ip Kim-ching, spokesperson for the campaign and an Election Committee member said. “Members of the civil society groups involved will probably have to pay for the expenses out of their own pockets.”

- As the history of HKU POP goes, a benevolent angel will appear on the last day to donate $1.5 million. Of course, they cannot tell you who this angel is. Privacy of personal data. You know what I mean [Wink wink nudge nudge].

- (SpeakoutHK) February 14, 2017.

A friend of mine who had taken part in the Civil Referendum said that the spokesperson for PopVote has reassured us that information technologists have said that the system is secure without possibility of loss of personal data to hackers. But this is changing the subject. The security of the voting system is a completely different issue from the collection of the personal data of citizens. The voting system may or may not be safe, but it does not tell us why these people are collecting the personal data.

I would like to ask Benny Tai: Why are you people collecting the personal data? Apart from establishing the identity of the person, why other use is there? Once the “Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017” project is over, what happens to the data? Will you hit the DELETE key and erase all data? If not, then why will you do with it? And have you obtained the consent of the participants for those unstated purposes?

These are the most basic issues in the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, which Professor Benny Tai must have surely considered, right? Don't count on it! In Benny Tai's history, he transmogrified the illegal Occupy Central into "Achieving ustice by Breaking the Law" (without having to bear any legal consequences yet); in ThunderGo, he is suspected of violating the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance; and now in the “Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017” he is suspected of violating the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance.

 “Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017” is intended to affect the Election Committee to vote according to the wishes of the people as revealed by PopVote. But if Benny Tai and friends had let the constitutional bill pass in 2015, the people could be directly realizing their wishes via one-person-one-vote to elect their Chief Executive. It is all the more tragic when Carrie Lam wins in the Election Committee with 800 votes but gets fewer than 1% in the  “Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum 2017”.

- (Bastille Post) February 15, 2017.

According to legal analysis, the Civil Referendum is being used to influence the nomination process if they demand the Electors to vote accordingly. As such, the organizers should be informing the participants about such goals while collecting personal data. At this time, some of the participants even think that they are voting for their own Chief Executive and gave up their personal data without realizing what is happening.

To satisfy the requirements of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Citizens United in Action may insert certain text that details the usage of personal data. However, we can expect that there will be litigation by other parties about this "unfair contract."

- (SCMP) Beware of privacy issues in mock online election. By Alex Lo. February 23, 2017.

Benny Tai Yiu-ting of Occupy Central fame is set to relaunch a mock nomination and election of the chief executive. The so-called civil referendum uses a mobile app and a website to encourage people to nominate and vote for “candidates”.

Critics including the privacy commissioner have expressed alarm. Tai’s previous ThunderGo mobile app debacle was accused by even some pan-democratic candidates in the last Legislative Council election of distorting the voting outcomes by favouring extremist candidates over more mainstream ones.

Compared to that, his latest “referendum” seems harmless enough – that is, until you think about what Tai and his group Citizens United in Action might be doing with the massive personal data they have been collecting from ThunderGo and now this. Do they use them for other purposes; delete them after use; or store them in a database, and for how long? And how vulnerable is their data storage to hacking?

In a rare foray into the city’s fractious politics, the privacy commissioner expressed concerns earlier this month about their handling of personal data from participants. As a result, Tai and his group temporarily halted the “referendum” last week. Now they claim they have resolved the security issues. Perhaps users can take his word for it; they take part at their own risk. The commissioner would do well to continue probing his group and intervene if necessary.

The mock voting involves two stages. People can first pick their chief executive candidates via a mobile app or a designated website. They will then vote on their favourite as well as least favoured candidates. In an attempt to influence the real election outcome, Tai said pan-democratic members, who make up more than a quarter of the 1,194-strong Election Committee, should use the public votes as a guide when casting their own ballots.

But this is really less interfering than it sounds. In the end, the election likely comes down to former chief secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and ex-finance chief John Tsang Chun-wah. Most pan-democrats have already decided to back Tsang.

Unlike many pro-establishment critics, I don’t see anything wrong with the mock referendum. Certainly everyone deserves a vote and would have had one by now if pan-democratic lawmakers didn’t vote down the government’s universal suffrage package in 2015.

But people should worry their private data being potentially misused or insufficiently protected.

(SCMP) February 13, 2017.

Canto-pop singer Anthony Wong Yiu-ming claims an MTR poster advertising his reunion concert next month was censored and removed from stations across Hong Kong, part of the political backlash that has shadowed his career since the Occupy Central movement.

The poster for Wong’s late-March reunion concert featured him and Lau Yee-tat – members of the now-disbanded 1980s musical duo Tat Ming Pair – along with digitally added images of about 80 prominent people in Hong Kong.

Wong said these were individuals the pair felt were influential in the city over the past 30 years, creating a collage effect inspired by The Beatles’ classic Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album cover.

People featured on the poster included Joshua Wong Chi-fung, the face of the pro-democracy Umbrella Revolution during Occupy Central; outspoken talk show host Albert Cheng King-hon; entrepreneur and media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-yee; populist former lawmaker “Mad Dog” Wong Yuk-man; and Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, the sixth Catholic Church bishop of Hong Kong who was outspoken on human rights.

But while the added figures were approved by a newspaper, Wong said some were fearful of even appearing in the same poster with the duo, particularly since Wong was a strident supporter of the pro-democracy Occupy Central demonstrations in late 2014.

He said the ads were pulled because someone in the poster with business links to mainland China was afraid of appearing with him, but he did not want to identify the person and described it as “ridiculous”. More “prominent” people had not complained, Wong added.

“It’s just one photo, one poster, but it reflects the current times we are in,” Wong said in a Facebook post. “This society really has people who fear everything, and their fear has led them to this point, where they are scared to death to even be in the same poster as us.” He blamed “the invisible hand” of censorship and interference in the industry and said the MTR Corp was not involved in the decision.

The movement for democracy in Hong Kong is being watched warily by the Beijing government, which is openly critical of greater independence for the former British colony as it operates semi-autonomously under the “one country, two systems” framework. But businesses worried about political reprisals on mainland China have moved to distance themselves from controversial figures endorsing democracy in the city.

During Occupy Central, two of Wong’s November concerts on the mainland were “indefinitely postponed” by organisers. He told the Post in May 2015 that for six months after Occupy he did not have a single job offer from either the mainland or Hong Kong. “It was a weird and worrying situation,” he said. “What worries me is that it even happened in Hong Kong because Hong Kong is supposed to be a free city.”

Now, the disappearance of Wong’s concert poster shows the “invisible hand” at work, he said, after experiencing difficulties during the entire process of creating and producing the poster.

He likened its removal to something out of George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four , depicting an authoritarian society whose citizens have little to no agency.

“Just like this poster, there are many people and things in this city that quickly disappear,” he wrote.

Fans took up the Orwell comparison on Facebook. “He continuously wrote: Down with Big Brother! Down with Big Brother!” one user commented. “Many people support you ... See you at the end of March,” another wrote.

Ho also posted messages on her Facebook page, saying the incident showed “the self-censorship of the entertainment industry has reached a level beyond that described in 1984”.

Wong called on his fans to help fill every seat for his concert. “Let us continue to dance and make music, challenging these most evil of times,” he said.

Internet comments:

- (The Stand News) February 13, 2017.

On Commercial Radio, Anthony Wong Yiu-ming said that everybody must surely want to know who the individual is. But Wong does not want to tell: "Because the individual is very scared. The recording company which is the organizer did not want to make him so scared. The individual said that he has lots of jobs in mainland China, so he was afraid that one photo or poster could affect him."

Wong Yiu-ming said that "His fear is worrisome." The poster had 80 persons from all walks of life. "Why should he be so scared?" "I also think that there are other people who should be more scared, such as Chief Executive candidates who stand with us." Other individuals who are "closer to the Central Government and at higher levels" did not object.

- (HKG Pao) February 13, 2017.

Anthony Wong explained: "This is a collage where the photos of the people were authorized by a certain newspapers and put together by us. Apart from the two of us, none of them were photographed with us."

In other words, Anthony Wong did not seek the approval of the 80 people to have their photos placed along side himself (who is openly gay and supports Occupy Central), Joshua Wong (who supports Occupy Central and Hong Kong self-determination/independence), etc. Does that mean that all 80 persons in the collage support the same? Isn't it selfish and presumptuous to do this unto others?

- This whole thing is just rubbish. This is a planned PR tactic to generate interest in the Tat Ming Pair 31 concert. None of the people complained, but Anthony Wong says some person whom he could not name complained. Yeah, sure! The giveaway lies in: "Wong called on his fans to help fill every seat for his concert."

- The project for the Golden Forum boys now is to determine the culprit by process of elimination. If this person is so concerned for his mainland business, then he should be run out of Hong Kong.

- Hey, buddy, we now know who it was.

(Ming Pao) February 16, 2017.

According to information, it was Jay Chou's company JVR Music which lodged the complaint with the organizers. In response to media inquiry, JVR said: "The poster was used for commercial promotion. Our company was not informed and did not approve the use of the altered image of Jay Chou. Because we protect and respect the rights of artists, we contacted the organizers."

What are you going to do to Jay Chou? I am waiting ... ZZZZZZZ ...

- It is incidentally true that Jay Chou does great business in China but it is immaterial. JVR Music is simply saying that they want to respect and protect the rights of their artists. Is that so wrong? Does more need to be said?

- And to hear that Anthony Wong said:  "Because the individual is very scared. The recording company which is the organizer did not want to make him so scared. The individual said that he has lots of jobs in mainland China, so he was afraid that one photo or poster could affect him." This is disgusting.

- Someone in the Tat Ming Pair camp leaked the information. JVR Music was willing to stay quiet but they had to respond when the media came calling. So now the world knows.

- Jay Chou/JVR Music could have proceeded directly to sue the Tat Ming Pair in court. It would be an open-and-shut case. They were nice enough to send a note without any public fanfare. They were trying to save face for the copyright-violators Tat Ming Pair, who were utterly ungrateful.

- I wonder if the Tat Ming Pair would be as sanguine as Jay Chou/JVR Music if someone had used their photos to promote something or the other (such as a CY Leung for Chief Executive campaign poster).

- The truth is always boring. There goes the political persecution story.

- What is Anthony Wong's understanding of copyright? A newspaper took a photo of an individual. Anthony Wong obtained permission from the newspaper to use that photo. Does that mean that the photo of the individual can be used in a promotional poster? If yes, this changes the entire cost structure of the notion of celebrity endorsement/sponsorship. It means that if I take a photo of Anthony Wong, I can use it to promote anything that I want (such as the Eating Dog Shit Is Good For Your Health campaign).

- Why are you trying to argue a legal point with someone who illegally occupied Central for 79 days?

- What if G.E.M. Tang asks Wen Wei Po to supply and authorize the use of their photos of Denise Ho, Anthony Wong and Chapman To for a promotional poster of her Patriotic Tour? According to Anthony Wong's theory of copyrights, there is nothing those people can do.

- The guy standing next to Brother Tat in the poster is John Tsang. An Elector friend of mine saw the photo and decided that he will vote for John Tsang. This means that the Tat Ming Pair poster must be included among John Tsang's campaign expenses in accordance with the Election Ordinance.

- Fear in Hong Kong? There's plenty of fear in Hong Kong, such as these most recent ones:

Fear of suppression of freedom of speech
Fear of suppression of freedom of assembly
Fear of the Hong Kong Police (because they are all black evil cops)
Fear of LGBT being discriminated against
Fear of TSA tests
Fear of being brainwashed
Fear of cross-border law enforcement (such as Lam Wing-kee being arrested in China for crimes committed in China)
Fear of Ricky Wong being persecuted by CY Leung "for a basket of reasons"
Fear of CY Leung running for re-election
Fear of Hong Kong being overrun by fake asylum seekers from South Asia
Fear of children being kidnapped by mainlanders
Fear of radiation-contaminated food from Japan
Fear of Dongjiang water contaminated by garbage dump
Fear of plastic rice
Fear of fear itself
...

- If the Beatles can do it, then why can't the Tat Ming Pair? That is the same logic as: "If the car in front of me ran a red light, then why wasn't he booked like me?"

(Hong Kong Research Association) 1,856 persons were interviewed by telephone January 24-February 8, 2017.

Q1. Which quality do you think the next Chief Executive needs to have the most?
24%: Firmly hold One Country Two Systems, Hong Kong ruled by Hong Kong people, High Degree of Autonomy
21%: Promote social harmony
17%: Trusted by the Central Government
13%: Has an excellent governing team
12%: Relative high public opinion support
5%: Honesty and open-mindedness
4%: Clear concepts of governance
1%: Others
3%: No opinion

Q2. Which issue do you think the next Chief Executive must deal with first?
32%: Relieve the housing problem
19%: Stimulate the Hong Kong economy
17%: Improve relationships between the executive and legislative branches
10%: Resolve conflict between Hong Kong and mainland China
10%: Relieve the poverty problem
9%: Restart the consultation on constitutional refrom
2%: Others
1%: No opinion

Q3. Which would you like to see happen in the 2017 Chief Executive election?
51%: The person that I like the most wins
43%: The person that I dislike the most loses
4%: Don't know/hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q4. Do you think the pan-democrats should send a representative to compete in the Chief Executive election?
47%: Yes
46%: No
6%: Don't know/hard to say
1%: No opinion

Q5. If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow, which of the following announced candidates will you support?
36%: John Tsang
35%: Carrie Lam
13%: Woo Kwok Hing
8%: Regina Ip
3%: Others
5%: No opinion

Isis Lee Facebook:

On the 286C bus, this fat brother kept surreptitiously taking photos of me napping for more than one hour. When I looked at him, he pretended that he was playing games on his mobile phone! The glass behind your back let me see that your monitor had my photo!! Damn! I was tired after work and tried to catch some sleep on the bus, but you want to take photos of me! Dirty man! Pervert!!!

- You should be happy to be filmed. It is an honor to be appreciated by someone. Why do you need to have such a negative tone? On the street, you look at people and they look at you. Looking at others with hostility simply makes your own life very unhappy.

- You are a so-called model with low name recognition. You must be very happy that all of Hong Kong now know who you are.

- Reporters chase after celebrities when they come across them in public. It is not a crime. So what if this man was filming you? You were in a public bus. Conversely, you are the one who filmed the fat guy without his permission.

- Did you scold him? What is the use of just posting his photo?

- Isis Lee: As soon as I took the photo of him, he immediately pressed the bell and got out of the bus.

- Just take a look at the fat guy in the photo. His eyes were shifty, as he is aware that he is being looked at and he looks as guilty as a plate of sin. If the fat guy was innocent, he would have demanded to know why he was being filmed.

- Big Sister, do you have any evidence to file charges? If no, you are committing libel!

- Isis Lee: First of all, I am Younger Sister, not Big Sister. Secondly, I personally saw him looking at my photo on the monitor while pretending to be playing a game. I can't make this up. Thirdly, will you please take a took at his eyes and expression. Who do you think was surreptitiously filming?

- The victim asserted that she saw the reflection of the monitor on the window. This is impossible under the laws of physics. The light from the monitor will hit the window and be reflected to the back. The person in front cannot see it.

- Dear Mr. Physicist, there is truth when there is a photo:

Because the photo was so clear, the "human flesh search engine" of Internet users soon identified the man in the photo as Sham Shui Po district councilor Kong Kwai-sang (ADPL Association for Democracy and People's Livelhood).

Kong Wai Sang Facebook

I just received a lot of information about someone accusing me filming a napping woman on a bus. They included photo and text. The pro-establishment camp must think that they have just received a precious gift because they are spreading it around. Unfortunately, I was just holding my mobile phone sideways to play games until I got off the bus. Perhaps the other party saw me holding the mobile phone sideways and thought that I was filming her. Therefore she made this accusation and sent it around.

I can fully understand the situation and feelings of the principle. I understand that fatigue after a day's hard work may impede judgment. But one should not come to conclusions just because of the looks or physique of someone. I hope that such misunderstanding won't occur again. Here I want to thank all those who are concerned about me. This was a minor misunderstanding. It would be nice if people can understand each other. Thanks.

- Here are the likely titles of the news reports according to the political positions of the respective media outlets (SPOOF ALERT):

Ta Kung Pao/Wen Wei Po: Dirty councilor caught taking photos surreptitiously, all Hong Kong citizens demand the police to enforce the law rigorously
Sing Tao: Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) suspected of surreptitious filming, the victim sought and gained Internet support
SpeakoutHK: Dirty district councilor caught red-handed with surreptitious filming, Yellow Ribbon Ghoul councilor harming Hong Kong again
Hong Kong Discussion Forum: Yellow Ribbon Ghoul councilor caught red-handed with surreptitious filming
Baby Kingdom: Baby Kingdom parents be carefully about being surreptitiously filmed on buses
She.com: Sisters, ten ways to stop surreptitious filming on buses

Bastille Post: Who do you believe? Surreptitious filming or game playing?
Oriental Daily: Game playing taken to be surreptitiously filming pretty girl, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) claimed fatigue affects judgment
am730: Surreptitious filming of female model on bus, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) said it was a misunderstanding.
The Stand News: Game playing taken to be surreptitious filming, Kong Kwai Sang said that the other party was too fatigued and misjudged
HK01: Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) accused of surreptitious filming, a photo becomes Rashomon

Apple Daily: Game playing taken to be surreptitious filming, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) laughed about being mistaken
Ming Pao: Game playing on bus treated as surreptitious filming, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) cries foul
Hong Kong Economic Journal: Game playing taken to be surreptitious filming, Kong Kwai Sang magnanimously offers explanation
Sky Post: Accused of surreptitiously filming female model, Kong Kwai Sang pleads innocence
Passion Times: Playing FIFA mischaracterized as surreptitious filming, Kong Kwai Sang (ADPL) said obesity, bachelorhood and short height are original sins
Sing Pao: Game playing mischaracterized as surreptitious filming, China Liaison Office causing harm everywhere
HK Golden Forum: Brothers, beware of being falsely accused of surreptitious filming on buses by Kong girls

- It is the nature of the pro-China faction to attack dissidents in every way possible. Meanwhile they either ignore or deny their own shortcomings. Such is their nature.

Kong Kwai Sang

I have turned over my mobile telephone to a forensic accounting company, and I have authorized them to extract the information from the mobile phone. The company promised to deliver the forensic report within three days. This will show whether I took photos on the night of February 4.

The cost is $50,000. Although I might need to borrow some money, this expense was unavoidable.

- Well, my guess is that you will be running a crowdfunding campaign to pay this forensic accounting company as well as lawyers to sue that woman. Right?

- I don't care! I am sending a cheque first thing on Monday morning to "Kong Kwai Sang" at his District Councilor office at Room 102, Podium, Lai Yeung House, Lei Cheung Uk, Sham Shui Po district, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

- I head that a legal letter will be issued on Monday morning. See you in court!

- Interestingly, the 'victim' Isis Lee has deleted three previously posts (in 2014, 2016 and January 2017) about having been surreptitiously filmed by others.

- You should emulate Leon Lai when it comes to apologizing.
You don't need so many people down at the District Council to come up with these strategies and tactics.
You are issuing statements left and right.
You say that you won't care to respond.
Then you don't want people to harass the woman.
Then you take your mobile phone (and you can be taking another mobile phone) to a private a company to check.
This is very embarrassing. Be a man! Be an adult!!!

- Milhouse Chau B Facebook

Last year ... at the time, I had issued a warning ... to behave oneself, because I know everything ... this bastard will never change, because he will look for any chance to exploit anyway ... for example, if you borrow his restroom, after you leave he will lick the toilet seat and look for your pubic hair.
At the time, I personally saw him molest a female students at the sixth floor corridor of the Chong Gene Hang College, 12 Cheung Man Road, Chai Wan, Hong Kong Island. At the time, the female student did not want to pursue the matter. To date, I am still extremely sorry that I did not beat up that bastard.

- No wonder the fat guy didn't want to file a police report. He has prior records! Instead, he pays a private company to declare himself clean.

- If he calls the police, the Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau may be able to recover all the deleted photos.

- Kong Kwai Sang said about Milhouse Chau B: "A student in a higher class at middle school accused me of molesting a female student in school twenty years ago. I would like to understand and deal with this matter. I did not do this, and I had no memory of having being involved in this type of misunderstanding. I am following through right now. I will tell you later. Please don't worry."

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 8, 2017.

Pro-democracy lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung announced on Wednesday that he will enter the chief executive race if he receives 37,790 unofficial nominations from members of the public, representing one per cent of the registered electorate.

To become an officially-nominated candidate, however, Leung will need to receive nominations from at least 150 of the 1,200 members of the small-circle Election Committee.

“I don’t think pro-democracy electors should vote for any of the four candidates because, simply, none of them can represent the standpoint of the pro-democracy camp,” said Leung at a press conference.

The four main candidates who have declared their intentions are: former chief secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, former finance secretary John Tsang Chun-wah, retired judge Woo Kwok-hing, and lawmaker Regina Ip.

“I don’t believe I’m the best candidate for the pro-democracy camp,” Leung claimed. “But because there are none, I’ve decided to come out and run.”

He later added that he had earlier asked pro-democracy legislator Eddie Chu Hoi-dick and former legislator Audrey Eu Yuet-mee to run for the city’s top job. But Chu was not yet 40 years old – the minimum age to become chief executive – and Eu refused.

Quoting Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro and English reformist Jeremy Bentham, Leung said he would run “to provide the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.”

Internet comments:

- The most powerful critic of candidate Leung Kwok-hung is Leung Kwok-hung himself.


In 2007, Alan Leong (Civic Party) was in the Chief Executive election. Critic Leung Kwok-hung said: "Alan Leong is the sinner against Democracy."
In 2012, Albert Ho (Democratic Party) was in the Chief Executive election:. Critic Leung Kwok-hung said: "Albert Ho is exposing his nine foxtails."
In 2017, Leung Kwok-hung (League of Social Democrats) is in the Chief Executive election. Leung Kwok-hung has given us the perfect illustration of the saying: "The Me of Today has overturned the Me of Yesterday."


"I oppose small-circle election!"
"Election? I want to play too!"

- League of Social Democrats policy platform in 2011:

Opposition to the Democratic Party and the small-circle Chief Executive election -- neither pig nor wolf, the nine-tailed fox makes an appearance.

- Small Circle Election: Abandoning the principles of universal suffrage to become the clowns of democracy

- (March 26, 2007) Wearing a yellow robe and a pig-face mask, Leung Kwok-hung charged into the vote-counting station and yelled: "Small-cricle election is worse than pigs and dogs."

- Leung Kwok-hung wore Donald Tsang's signature bowtie and a dog mask and crawled on the ground to make fun of the running dog Donald Tsang running in the small-circle election.

- (SCMP) Long Hair for chief executive? Pull the other one. By Alex Lo. February 9, 2017.

Leung Kwok-hung wants to join the chief executive race. Nicknamed Long Hair, the veteran street protester-turned-lawmaker announced his intention to join the fray yesterday. The question is, why? It has long been rumoured that Leung wanted to be a candidate but was held back by more mainstream pan-democrats, who argued that it would be counterproductive for him to do so. Clearly, he has broken ranks and is supported by several localist lawmakers.

In a rambling speech yesterday at a press conference, he offered an explanation of why he was jumping in now. He said he would only run if he could gather more than 37,790 signatures – 1 per cent of the registered electorate – on the internet as an exercise in civil nomination. He admitted he was not the best candidate, but argued the pan-dems needed one of their own on the ticket. However, he also said the Election Committee was “a small circle” and his joining the race would expose its illegitimacy.

I leave it to wiser minds to make sense of his rationalisation. It all sounded completely incoherent.

Ditto his localist friends at the press conference. This is the same person who rounded on fellow pan-democrats – Alan Leong Kah-kit of the Civic Party in 2007 and Democrat Albert Ho Chun-yan in 2012 – for running in the chief executive race. He had argued their candidacy lent legitimacy to an illegitimate election process. Now he is doing exactly the same. Indeed, the current Election Committee consisting of more than 330 pan-democrats and their allies is without doubt more representative than the “small circle” membership of previous committees. That’s all the more reason for the pan-dems to use their votes wisely rather than wasting them on Long Hair.

As for Leung saying he would only run if he had enough public support, this, too, is a meaningless gesture. Perhaps he should simply field a non-human candidate, a long-standing democratic tradition as a means of casting a protest vote, satirising the system or just providing entertainment. It would achieve the same purpose, except the candidate would be far cuter. A pig, a chicken, a dog, a cat or even a hamster would do.

Given the anti-government and anti-mainland sentiments of large swathes of our population, such an animal would no doubt attract many internet votes. It may prove to be even more popular than Long Hair.

(SCMP) February 10, 2017.

Who do you want as Hong Kong's next Chief Executive? John Tsang leads at 42.5% (up from 27.6% in early January) over Carrie Lam at 28.2% (up from 23.2% in early January).

Who do you think has the best chance of winning the election? Carrie Lam leads at 65.9% (up by 20.4% from early January) over John Tsang at 18.3% (down by 1.6% from early January).

This survey was conducted before Leung Kwok-hung announced declared his intention to run.

(SCMP) Feburary 10, 2017.

The fillip for Lam came as a survey commissioned by the South China Morning Post showed that the support she enjoyed among those who identified themselves as “pro-establishment” grew from 54.6 per cent in January when a similar poll was conducted, to 59.4 per cent in February. Tsang’s “pro-establishment” supporters grew from 4.4 per cent in the last poll to 16.4 per cent. Tsang won the support of 42.7 per cent of “middle of the road” respondents, up from 24.1 per cent in the January poll. Some 64.2 per cent of respondents, who identified themselves as “localist”, also backed Tsang, compared with 6.3 per cent for Lam.

Internet comments:

- Wen Wei Po cartoon

Deprivation of rights

Male television viewer of Chief Executive election news: "I support this one. I oppose that one."
Female housewife sighs: "If the pan-democrats had not vetoed the constitutional reform bill, we would be voting this time."

CAP 245 Public Order Ordinance - Section 19 Riot

(1) When any person taking part in an assembly which is an unlawful assembly by virtue of section 18(1) commits a breach of the peace, the assembly is a riot and the persons assembled are riotously assembled.

(2) Any person who takes part in a riot shall be guilty of the offence of riot and shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for 10 years; and
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 5 years.

(SCMP) August 30, 2016.

The first round of individuals accused of rioting in Mong Kok during the Lunar New Year will stand trial early next year. Lawyers of students Hui Ka-ki, 22, and Mak Tsz-hei, 19, and cook Sit Tat-wing, 33, on Tuesday indicated that the three defendants intended to plead not guilty. They face one joint charge of rioting, which allegedly took place on the northbound lane of Nathan Road, near Soy Street, on February 9. The District Court heard that one of them allegedly threw bamboo during the unrest.

Prosecutors are expected to call 20 police offiers as witnesses, and will rely on footage taken by both the police and TVB. But prosecutors did not plan to summon photographers who made the cited footage.

A pre-trial review is scheduled for January 13, ahead of a trial starting on February 6.

Prosecutor Andy Lo Tin-wai said 10 days should be sufficient for the trial, factoring in time to decide the admissibility of evidence. He added that all three defendants were arrested on site.

The defence meanwhile, had indicated they would dispute aspects of Sit’s cautioned statement, including its voluntariness.

Judge Anthony Kwok Kai-on reminded all three defendants to keep in touch with their lawyers and abide by bail conditions, which included an injunction over the alleged site of the offence. “The charge faced by the three of you carries a certain degree of severity. Otherwise you wouldn’t be in District Court,” Kwok said. “Please keep in touch with the Legal Aid lawyer assigned to you.”

At least 55 people have been charged over the Mong Kok riot since February, with 20 of them discharged from prosecution due to insufficient evidence. Hui, Mak and Sit make up the first batch of defendants transferred from Kowloon City Court to have their cases heard at the District Court, with two more batches – of five and 10 defendants – to be brought to the same court. The cases are currently divided such that there won’t be any overlap in witnesses, location and time of offence, Lo explained.

(HKG Pao) February 9, 2017.

The prosecutor pointed out that at around 450am, more than a dozen persons were gathered on the road section between Soy Street and Dundas Street. The police were facing Dundas Street in a formation. People placed obstacles several dozen meters in front of the police line. They were throwing glass bottles at the police.

The prosecutor said that the first defendant wore a blue blazer and blue jeans, and took part in throwing glass bottles at the police. When the police pushed forward to disperse the crowd, the first defendant turned out to flee through the planters. A female police officer caught her from behind. The video showed that defendant throwing glass bottles along with others. The arresting female police officer Lo Wai-yin testified in court. She said that at 450am under full lighting, she observed the first defendant threw glass bottles on two occasions at the police line.

The prosecutor said that the second defendant wore a black jacket, grey pants, black-camouflage backpack, black gloves and black scarf. He covered his mouth and nose. When the police line retreat ed, he approached with glass bottle in hand and threw at the police along with others. He also took a 2-meter-long bamboo pole and threw it, hitting a male policeman in the left front leg.

The prosecutor said that the third defendant came up on sidewalk and tossed glass bottles at the police. When the police began to disperse the crowd, the third defendant threw the object in his hand at the police and then fled. He slipped and fell to the ground. A police sergeant rushed up to arrest him. The third defendant fought back and got free. Other police officers combined to subdue him.

(SCMP) February 9, 2017.

Objects including glass bottles being hurled at police posed a threat and prompted the force to move its line of defence backwards, a policewoman confronting rioters in Mong Kok last year told the District Court on Thursday.

On the second day of the trial of three people accused of rioting in the district during the Lunar New Year in 2016, officer Lo Wai-yin recounted the violent confrontation between protesters and police around midnight. “It was chaotic. So many glass bottles and various objects were hurled at us,” she testified.

On the morning of February 9, 2016, dozens of protesters gathered on the northbound lane of Nathan Road near Soy Street, according to the prosecution. The move followed a confrontation between local crowds and police over hawker control the previous night. Police sent in reinforcements as tensions escalated. A group of people formed a barricade and blocked part of Nathan Road. Some of them came close to the police line of defence and began throwing various objects at officers. The court heard the attack continued despite police warnings. Not every officer was equipped with protective gear like shields and helmets, the prosecution added.

As officers retreated, Lo said she saw a woman, dressed in blue, twice throw glass bottles towards the force’s line of defence. “She did not wear a surgical mask. She had long dark hair,” Lo said of the woman’s appearance. But the woman ran away as the force began to take action to disperse the crowd.

The court heard that the woman was intercepted by Lo before leaving the scene. “I acted alone and took her to an open area outside Chong Hing Square,” she said. The policewoman searched through her rucksack, found her Hong Kong identity card and knew her name was Hui Ka-ki. The woman was then arrested and taken to the Mong Kok police station, the court was told. Hui, a university student, and two others, student Mak Tsz-hei and cook Sit Tat-wing, face one joint charge of rioting.


23-year-old Hong Kong University student Hui Kai-ki threw glass bottles

(Wen Wei Po) February 10, 2017.

According to policewoman Lo Wai-yin, she and other police officers set up a defense line on Nathan Road near Soy Street around 5am. At the time, 20 to 30 persons were assembled. These people threw garbage bins and bamboos onto the road, as well as throw bricks and glass bottles at the police. She observed a woman in a light-blue blazer threw a glass bottle from the third northbound lane on Nathan Road at the police. At the time, she was about 20 to 30 meters away from this woman. When she heard the order "Charge!", she advanced with other police officers. She saw the woman throw another glass bottle at the police.

The prosecutor asked why Lo was sure that this was the same woman. Lo said that the woman wore a light-blue blazer, had long straight black hair, carried a black rucksack, and was therefore easily identifiable. When arrested, Lo issued the standard caution. The woman said: "Madam, I have a date to have a night snack with friends. I was merely holding a glass bottle. I never threw it."

When asked why the defendant had no glass bottle in her hand, Lo said that she briefly lost sight of the woman. However, she never lost sight between the second throw and the arrest.

The prosecutor showed a video taken by the police. The video was about 2 minutes long. There were sounds of glass bottles breaking on the ground and iron bars banging. Several plainclothes policemen shouted for people to stop while retreating. Then the plainclothes policemen charged at the crowd.

The defense complained that the police used "unnecessary force" against the female defendant Hui Ka-ki. The arresting officer was not Lo Wai-yin, but a tall and strong male policeman. Another male policeman joined in and dragged Hui outside a closed store while screaming obscenities at her and slamming her head several times against the iron gate.

(Oriental Daily) February 10, 2017.

Female police officer Lo Wai-yin was shown a video taken by the police. Lo said that the female threw four glass bottles, one of which she personally saw. Upon cross-examination, Lo admitted that the person who threw the bottles wore a mask. The defense asked Lo why she did not note this on her notebook. Lo explained that it was negligence.

The defense said that there was a male voice in the video saying :"They are doomed. Those who get arrested." So does Lo agree that a policeman said it? Lo said that she could not tell. The defense asked if this was appropriate for a policeman to say so. The judge interjected and asked what this has to do with Lo's testimony. The defense said that the phrase was critical in the case to the conduct of the police officers, and he wanted to establish whether this was normal within police culture. The judge ruled that since the witness did not say it herself, she did not have to answer.

The defense said that after Lo caught the defendant who struggled, Lo did not immediately handcuff her. Instead she searched the rucksack, cautioned the defendant before putting the handcuffs on. The defense questioned whether Lo ignored the possibility that the defendant may escape. Lo said that she established the identity of the defendant first before she remembered to apply the handcuffs. The defense said that Lo made this up, but Lo disagreed. The defense also said that Lo was not the arresting officer, but Lo disagreed again.

(Apple Daily) February 10, 2017.

The defense noted that a male voice was heard to say: "They are doomed. Those who get arrested." When asked, Lo said: "Sorry, I can't tell who it was just from the voice alone." The defense said that they will prove later that the comment came from a policeman.

The defense asked whether Lo felt that "They are doomed. Those who get arrested." The judge questioned: "Isn't it against the law to throw things? When someone breaks the law right in front of the police, what is wrong with arresting them?" The defense did not press further.

Lo said that she saw the female defendant threw glass bottles twice. When Lo watched the police video, she counted the female defendant throwing glass bottles four times. Lo explained that she personally observed the female defendant threw glass bottles twice, but she did not personally see the other two times.

The defense asked whether a tall, strong male policeman arrested Hui Ka-ki first. Lo said: "No impression." Did the policeman slam Hui's head against the iron gate several times? Lo said: "I don't know."

Female police officer Yip Wing-yan also testified. The defense said that she grabbed Hui's arm forcefully. Did Yip make contact with Hui? Yip said: "I don't remember." After watching the TVB video of Hui being subdued, Yip said that it was her hand that was pressed on the back of Hui's neck so that the head was pressed against the iron gate. Yip said that she was dispatched to the scene that night. "No one told me exactly what to do. I only knew that I was supposed to be part of the defense line for crowd control. Nobody explained the mission to me ... I did not receive any orders. I don't know if someone said anything."

(Oriental Daily) February 13, 2017.

According to police officer Chan Hung-bok, demonstrators were throwing glass bottles and other objects at them. He observed a man wearing a black jacket, grey pants, black gloves, black camouflage backpack and black scarf covering his mouth and nose throwing glass bottle at them and then running back into the crowd.

Later Chan said that the same individual charged back at the police with a 2-meter long bamboo pole. An order was issued for the police to charge. Chan advanced. The man used his right hand to throw the bamboo pole at Chan, hitting Chan on the lower right leg. Chan went up and subdued the man with the help of other police officers. Chan handcuffed the man. Chan found the man's ID in his backpack which proved to belong to the second defendant Mak Tsz-hei. Chan arrested Mak for assaulting a police officer. Another police officer picked up the bamboo pole as evidence.

The defense played the video from the day, and asserted that Chan caught the bamboo pole in his hand and tossed it aside without it hitting his leg. Chan disagreed. He said that he used his hand to block the bamboo pole but still felt being hit on the lower leg. The defense questioned why Chan did not write down the blocking of the bamboo pole in his notebook. Chan said that he only recalled the reflexive action after watching the video.

The defense said that the video showed that after Mak was subdued, another police officer came forward, hit Mak twice with a baton and left. Was that unnecessary? Chan said that he did not notice the action at the time but only saw it on the video afterwards. Chan disagreed that the action was unnecessary.

The defense questioned whether Chan arrested Mak first and then wrote down the similarities between Mak and the person who threw the bamboo pole. However, the video showed someone who cannot be clearly seen approach the police and that may or may not be Mak. Chan disagreed.

(Wen Wei Po) February 13, 2017.

Police sergeant Shum Wai-keung testified that the troublemakers were throwing glass bottles at them. Police warnings were ignored. Shum observed six or seven men charging up. "There was a lone man charging up to our defense line along the pedestrian sidewalk." This man would flee from the police, losing balance in front of Chong Hing Square and falling on the ground. Shum came up to make the arrest, but the man broke free. Other police officers joined to subdue the man on the ground. The man was identified to the the third defendant Sit Tat-wing.

(HKG Pao) February 14, 2017.

Police sergeant Shum Wai-keung denied that he used a police baton to hit Sit Tat-wing on the head and back, and he did not pressed Sit's head against the iron gate of the shop.

Senior investigator Chan Hon testified that he assisted Shum Wai-keung to make the arrest. He saw that Sit was bleeding on the forehead and the back of the head. But Sit was conscious and capable to answering questions. Under caution, Sit said: "When the others threw, I threw as well. But I did not hit any police officer."

The defense said that Sit Tat-wing reviewed the statement and denied that he said: "When the others threw, I threw as well." Chan told Sit that the statement can be used during mitigation. However, Sit insisted that he did not say it. At this point, another police officer said: "A whole group of police officers saw you throwing objects. The police won't make false accusations against you. If you sign the statement, you can be bailed out." Chan denied that this happened.

(Apple Daily) February 14, 2017.

In court, a video showing the arrest of Sit Tat-wing was played. Sit fell down on the ground, and Police sergeant Shum Wai-keung went up to hold his hands. But Sit stood up and took a couple of steps before other students saw him. Our reporter saw police officers appear to hit him with what appears to be a police baton, and someone in the background said twice: "Fuck your mother's cunt!" Shum Wai-keung said that those police officers from the Kowloon West anti-organized crime squad and could not be identified by him because they wore helmets.

(Oriental Daily) February 16, 2017.

The defense said that the statements by the defendants were made to the police under the caution that the charges were assaulting a police officer and/or resisting arrest. Now that the charge has been upgraded to rioting, the defense argued that those statements should be ruled inadmissible in court.

The prosecution said that the police arrested the defendants and recorded their responses. They did not hold any additional investigation or induce the defendants to make statements that go beyond the charges.

(Wen Wei Po) February 16, 2017.

According to Hui Ka-ki's lawyer, Hui was arrested for assaulting a police officer and said after being cautioned: "Madam, I have a date to have a night snack with a friend. I held a glass bottle. I did not throw it." Hui made that statement based upon the situation at the time. But now Hui is being charged with rioting and not assaulting a police officer. So her statement should be inadmissible.

According to Sit Tat-wing's lawyer, Sit was arrested for assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. After being cautioned, Sit said: "Other people were throwing so I did too. I did not hit any police officer." This is a response that was begging for mercy. But if Sit had been charged with rioting, he might have chosen to remain silent.

As for the videos, the defense said that the defendants will not testify on their own behalf, that they will not summon any witnesses and they will not make case summations. However, they will continue to contest the admissibility of the videos. The judge said that the defense is required to make a summation if they have objections.

(Oriental Daily) February 17, 2017.

Defendants Hui Kai-ki and Mak Tsz-hei declined to take the witness stand. Defendant Sit Tat-wing testified for himself. He said that he went to his uncle's place in Olympian City to have the  traditional Lunar New Year family dinner. Afterwards, he took a taxi to sing karaoke at Neway in the Chong Hing Building, Mong Kok. He left at around 4am. He went down to the street and saw many people. He asked and he learned that the police had opened fire. He saw a bunch of people hauling garbage bins towards Mong Kok. Soon after he saw a bunch of people running toward Yau Ma Ti. When he saw people running, he ran with them too. Suddenly he was pushed over from behind and attacked. He passed out. When he came to, the police had already handcuffed him. He denied that he threw glass bottles or other objects at the police. He denied that he was the bottle-thrower in the video.

The prosecutor asked Sit why he did not choose to leave when he saw so many people in the middle of the street. Sit said that he wanted to watch. Besides there were no taxis to be had. But he agreed that he could leave if he wanted to. The prosecutor asked him why he ran with the others. He said that the situation was chaotic with people throwing stuff. So he ran with them because he was worried about his own safety.

The judge agreed that the statements to the police by the first and third defendants will not be admitted as evidence. The five videos downloaded from the media will also not be admitted as evidence. The judge then rule that the other evidence is sufficient for the case. Summations will be heard on March 3.

(SCMP) March 3, 2017.

The protests in Mong Kok last year did not amount to a “riot” under Hong Kong law, a court heard on Friday.

Barrister Erik Shum Sze-man, who was making his closing submission at a trial of three people accused of rioting, said that the city’s law defined the offence narrowly.

He was arguing for 23-year-old university student Hui Ka-ki who, along with student Mak Tsz-hei, 20, and cook Sit Tat-wing, 33, face one joint charge of rioting. The three have pleaded not guilty and will face their verdicts on March 16.

On the morning of February 9, 2016, dozens of protesters gathered on the northbound lane of Nathan Road near Soy Street, according to the prosecution, following a confrontation between local crowds and police over hawker control the previous night.

On the day of the protests, police sent in reinforcements as tensions escalated. A group of people formed a barricade and blocked part of Nathan Road. Some of them came close to the police line of defence and began throwing various objects, including glass bottles, at officers.

Shum on Friday did not contest his client’s presence at the scene. But he argued that her mere presence would not be sufficient to impose criminal liability on the student.

While she might have taken part in an unlawful assembly, her alleged conduct did not amount to rioting, for which the punishment would be more severe, Shum said. “No one was actually harmed in the course of the event. No property was damaged,” he said, adding that no one had ever claimed ownership of the objects hurled at police.

The lawyer also contested the evidence presented by the prosecution, saying no “reasonable person” could conclude from the recorded footage that Hui, who was found among the crowds at the time, had actually thrown bottles at police. “Police cameras didn’t capture the face of the woman [who threw bottles],” Shum said.

(SCMP) March 16, 2017.

Three young protesters were convicted on Thursday of rioting in Mong Kok last year after the District Court found that they hurled glass bottles and a bamboo stick at police officers during the Lunar New Year disturbances.

Their rioting convictions are the first on that charge to come out of the violent clashes, during which a police officer fired warning shots as protesters launched bricks and started fires.

Judge Sham Siu-man ruled that protesters that night had taken part in a riot after finding they were part of an unlawful assembly in which participants committed a breach of peace by throwing various objects at police at the northbound lane of Nathan Road, near Soy Street in Mong Kok on February 9 last year.

Sit Tat-wing, a 33-year-old cook, as well as students Hui Ka-ki, 23, and Mak Tsz-hei, 20, had pleaded not guilty to one joint count of riot.

While the defence had argued that the scene in the present case did not amount to a riot because no property was damaged and no one was injured, Sham countered that the offence required only a violent act to be committed.

“What if all protesters held out knives to attack the police, but all officers were unscathed because they were all armed with protective gear?” the judge asked. “Does that not amount to a breach of peace?”

Sham further concluded that all three defendants were part of the riot, and found that all of them had thrown objects such as glass bottles and a bamboo stick at the officers.

(Oriental Daily) March 16, 2017.

The magistrate ruled that the incident that night was a riot and the three defendants were part of that riot. Therefore all three defendants were found guilty. The riot section of the public order ordinance was enacted in 1970, and these three defendants were the first Hong Kong residents ever so charged.  Previously the charge had only been used against Vietnamese boat people rioting in a refugee camp. The three defendants were remanded in custody awaiting sentencing.

The magistrate said that the first defendant Hui Ka-ki was not a spectator. She was the woman in blue throwing a bottle in the video and arrested subsequently. The second defendant Mak Tsz-hei was not a spectator either. He was the person who threw the bamboo pole at the police and arrested subsequently. The third defendant Sit Tat-wing was definitely not a spectator, because he threw a glass bottle at the police.

The prosecution read out the backgrounds of the three defendants. All three have no prior criminal records. The first defendant is  a 23-year-old student at Hong Kong University, no work experience, single. The second defendant is 20-year-old, studying for a diploma at the Education University, no work experience, single, living with his parents and a 14-year-old sister. The third defendant studied to form 5 secondary school, works as a western-food cook, lives with his mother and elder brother, father deceased, divorced, has a 4-year-old son.

The prosecution presented 13 cases of riot cases in England and Hong Kong for reference. The prosecutor said that the second defendant is only 20-year-old, so that time served at a training centre may be more suitable than prison. The prosecutor said that the crime of riot should carry a sentence with deterrent effect.

(Sing Tao) March 16, 2017.

In mitigation, the lawyer for the first defendant Hui Ka-ki said that there were very few riots in Hong Kong and the previous cases involved large-scale property damages. By comparison this case took place only between 430am and 500am, with neither premeditation nor weapons. The small number of police was able to disperse the crowd of 20 to 30 persons within a short period of time. Therefore this is a small-scale riot. The defendant Hui Ka-ki only threw a glass bottle and did not injure anyone. So she should receive fewer than 9 months in jail.

Hui Ka-ki is a double major in literature and education at Hong Kong University. In order to deal with this case, she obtained a one-year leave of absence from the university. She wants to become an English teacher. This case does not involve any personal interests, as Hui was only unhappy with society/government and participated in the incident in order to help unlicensed small vendors.

(Oriental Daily) March 16, 2017

The magistrate said that the precedent is the case of the Vietnamese refugees rioting at the Whitehead Detention Centre in 1999. They also threw objects. In that case, the starting point of the sentence was 5 years. The defense argued that the Whitehead case was premeditated.

In mitigation, the lawyer for the second defendant Mak Tsz-hei said that the defendant did so not for personal gain, so his case is different from ordinary riots. But the magistrate said that the boat people were confined to the detention centre in the precedent case. In this case, the police had to stay to carry out their duties, even though some of them were not properly equipped to deal with a riot. The magistrate said that the defendants and other persons threw glass bottles at the police beginning from 11pm through to 4am and 5am. "Whatever was done at the heat of the moment should have cooled down. If you say that they joined in at a later time, then how can you say that it was without premeditation?" The magistrate said: 'A glass bottle can kill someone. Violence is violence. I don't see any difference." "You say that their motives were noble. Should they get a lighter sentence because they had a good cause?"

The lawyer for the second defendant said that the case was different from the gangland clashes among the refugees. The defendant has currently stopped attending school. In consideration of his young age, non-incarceration options can be explored so that the defendant can complete his studies. This incident has affected him greatly and he hopes for a lenient sentence.

The third defendant presented petition letters from friends and family members. His father passed away 10 years ago, and he had to look after the family (including his 62-year-old mother and an elder brother who is mentally ill) as well as take care of his 4-year-old son. Through hard work, he was promoted to a western food head chef earning $18,000 per month. The family members said that he is not evil and pleaded for a lenient sentence. The defense said that this was a one-time-only incident in which nobody got hurt. The defendant did not have premeditation and did not bring a weapon. He hopes for a lenient sentence.

(Ming Pao) March 16, 2017.

Hui Ka-ki presented 10 petition letters from her elder sister, professors and fellow students. They all mentioned that Hui is very concerned about the rights of stray animals, and that she paid her own money to take care of stray dogs and cats until they undergo sterilization.

(The Standard) March 16, 2017.

Three protesters are looking at jail after they were convicted of rioting - the first riot conviction in 17 years - for hurling glass bottles and bamboo sticks at police in the 2016 Lunar New Year riot in Mong Kok.

University of Hong Kong student Hui Ka-ki, 23, student Mak Tsz-hei, 20, and chef Sit Tat-wing, 33, were remanded in custody after their bail requests were denied.

In the first riot convictions in 17 years, District Court Deputy Judge Sham Siu-man ruled all three were among the rioters, rejecting the main defense argument that they were mere bystanders.

The judge, who will sentence the three this morning, compared the case to a riot by a group of Vietnamese in a refugee center in Whitehead back in 1999.

And he said he would consider sentencing from the starting point of five years, just like in the Whitehead case. "Any violent act is a breach of the peace, regardless of casualties or damages," Sham said. "Let's say protesters attacked the police with knives, and the officers were unharmed because they wore helmets," Sham quoted as an example. Would it be a breach of the peace? I guess the answer would be pretty clear."

These were the first rioting convictions from the so-called "fishball revolution" that broke out on February 9 last year over the government's attempt to crack down on street-food hawkers.

The three were arrested near the northbound lane of Nathan Road near Soy Street in Mong Kok. After reviewing all the evidence, the judge concluded that the woman in a blue top seen hurling glass bottles at police four times was Hui. He also believed that Mak threw bamboo sticks and Sit heaved bottles at police.

Rejecting arguments that the trio were merely onlookers, the judge said he decided Hui and Mak were part of the rioters based on the location where they were arrested. "Even without proving they hurled the bottles and bamboo, there was enough evidence supporting the charge," he said.

He did not believe the police arrested the wrong persons, saying that if they had just been bystanders they would have distanced themselves from the rioters.

Sit, for example, said he did not take part and only ran along with other protesters because he was "worried about his safety." But the judge said: "What he said did not make sense," adding that mingling with protesters was the last thing a spectator would want to do.

Dismissing the defense's point that there were discrepancies between the video evidence and police statements, Sham said it merely "showed the limitation of human memory." "Our brain does not record everything happening clearly like a camera does," he said.

The three had pleaded not guilty to one joint count of riot and their counsels asked for leniency.

Erik Shum Sze-man, on behalf of Hui, said it was a "one-off, spontaneous and unplanned act" as government workers tried to clear street hawkers at 11 pm and the protesters started the unrest at 4 am. He said the case involved a relatively low level of violence compared to examples raised by the prosecution, and that weapons used were only handy and immediately available items, which proved it was not a planned act. He said Hui aspired to become a teacher but her studies at HKU had been suspended because of the case.

Mitigating for Mak, barrister Catherine Wong Kam-kuen said he was not "acting in his own self-interest" but for society and said the offense was of an "improvisational nature." Unconvinced, the judge said there was enough time to "let everything cool off." Wong asked the judge to give a lenient sentencing for Mak so he can continue his studies.

Sit's counsel told the court his client was divorced with a four-year-old son.

Under the Public Order Ordinance, the maximum penalty for rioting is 10 years' jail, but the District Court only has the authority to hand down a seven- year sentence.

(Oriental Daily) March 17, 2017.

At sentencing, the magistrate said that throwing an object at a police officer may not lead to a long jail sentence, but it is a different matter if 20 to 30 people do so repeatedly. Therefore a prison sentence is necessary to deter recurrence. The magistrate said that the police did not have the right protective equipment at the time, and they were lucky not to be injured or killed. In the videos, the rioters were seen to throw in order to cause injuries. This is a serious crime irrespective of the underlying motive.

The magistrate said this case is different from the boat people precedent. The glass bottles and bamboo pole were used to cause bodily harm. The police did not have protective gear, but they had to stay because they were bound to do so by duty. There was no doubt that the rioters were going after the police. Glass bottles are not found everywhere on the street; they were procured elsewhere and brought to the location to throw at the police in order to cause bodily injury. Violence is violence and it should not be used no matter what the motive is. The court needs to send the message that a price has to be paid for rioting. Therefore, the defendants were each sentenced to three years in prison.

(SCMP) March 17, 2017.

The first three protesters convicted of rioting in Mong Kok in February last year were jailed for three years each on Friday.

Students Hui Ka-ki, 23, and Mak Tsz-hei, 20, as well as cook Sit Tat-wing, 33, were convicted after trial on Thursday on one joint count of riot.

The offence is punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment.

All three have indicated that they will appeal against their conviction and sentence. It is understood that defence is disappointed by the fact that the judge did not seek sentencing reports on the suitability of sending Mak, the youngest defendant, to a training centre as an alternative.

The District Court case centred on clashes at the northbound lane of Nathan Road, near Soy Street, in the small hours of February 9, after a conflict over hawker control escalated into violent disturbances across the shopping district during the Lunar New Year.

Judge Sham Siu-man said a deterrent sentence was needed to send a message to the public that anyone participating would have to pay a price, which could sometimes be very great. “The court cannot condone such violent behaviour,” he said before a full house in the public gallery.

Among the crowd was Hong Kong Indigenous convenor Ray Wong Toi-yeung, who faces a High Court jury trial over charges of riot, incitement to unlawful assembly and incitement to riot.

The judge said past cases showed that courts had to consider in sentencing the level of violence used, the scale of riot, the number of people involved and whether there was any premeditation.

He explained that an individual throwing a glass bottle might not attract a lengthy jail term, but the same could not be said of 20 to 30 people throwing glass bottles in a chaotic situation as the scene could spiral out of control at any time.

Some police officers, he said, were equipped only with batons that night in face of glass bottles flying from multiple directions.

“[Their] life safety was certainly under severe threat – it was their pure luck that no officer was injured,” he continued. “We have to consider the interests of those who manage our society’s public order.”

Sham also noted that the glass bottles were no doubt intentionally gathered as there could not have been that many of them lying around.
But he accepted that there was no direct evidence to show that participants had organised and arranged the riot.

His ruling drew particular attention to the case of refugees rioting at Whitehead on September 27, 1989, during which 20 Vietnamese boatpeople attempted to storm into a small hut while armed with iron pipes, wooden poles and other improvised weapons.

No one was severely injured due to the police’s timely arrival, but the Court of Appeal found five years was a suitable term for conviction after trial.

Sham said the violence and number of people involved in the present case was no less than that in the Vietnamese riot.

While the defence had repeatedly emphasised that the defendants did not act for personal gain, the judge reiterated that “violence is violence”.

“The harm violence inflicts on people and society would not change because the perpetrators carry a different purpose,” he said.

Police welcomed the ruling, which Chief Inspector Baron Chan Shun-ching said sufficiently reflected the severity of offence.

Ray Wong did not comment on the case outside court, but said that the public should think about why young people were willing to pay such a heavy price to take to the streets.

Sham classified the scene as a riot after finding that the 20 to 30 protesters on site took part in an unlawful assembly, where they displayed acts of violence that amounted to a breach of peace.

He further concluded that the three defendants were all part of the riot, during which they hurled glass bottles and a bamboo stick at police.

No one was injured in the present case.

All three defendants had no prior criminal record.

Prosecutors called for a deterrent sentence to address public interest over the defendants’ individual needs for rehabilitation.

The defence revealed in mitigation that both students had suspended their schooling because of the case, with Hui deferring her Bachelor of Arts and Education studies at the University of Hong Kong.

Her counsel, Erik Shum Sze-man, asked for a short – if not suspended – sentence in hope that she could resume her schooling this September. “It was her childhood dream to become a teacher,” Shum said as Hui cried in the dock. Letters submitted in mitigation further revealed that Hui was an active, passionate student well liked by peers and dedicated to caring for stray animals. A professor wrote that her assignments showed she had insightful ideas on helping students with special educational needs.

The court also heard that Sit, a divorced father of a four-year-old, was a hardworking breadwinner supporting his ex-wife and his ailing mother and brother. “It’s unlikely that he would ever take part [in such activities] again,” counsel Ronny Leung Yin-wai said.

(SCMP) Mong Kok riot judge references Vietnamese boatpeople attack in Hong Kong in 1989. March 17, 2017.

The scale of violence seen at the Mong Kok riot last year was as severe as the attack on a small hut by Vietnamese boatpeople in Whitehead detention centre in 1989, a judge found. The case was cited at length by judge Sham Siu-man as he jailed three protesters for three years for taking part in the Lunar New Year riot, in which they joined 20 others in hurling glass bottles and bamboo sticks.

The District Court heard that some 20 Vietnamese boatpeople attacked the occupants of a small hut at Whitehead in the small hours of September 27, 1989. They attempted to force their way in while armed with iron pipes and wooden poles, hurling objects at the hut as they advanced, while their intended victims were forced to barricade themselves inside.

The cause of conflict was rivalry between people from two areas in Vietnam. No one was severely injured due to the timely arrival of the police, but the Court of Appeal found five years was a suitable term for conviction after trial.

Sham noted that the two cases were different in that there was no direct evidence to show there was planning ahead of the violent clashes in Mong Kok. But he added: “The violence involved and number of people was certainly no less than the [boatpeople] case.”

While the defence argued that their clients did not act for personal gain but only to support hawkers and express their discontent over government policy, the judge stressed that “violence is violence”. “The harm violence inflicts on people and society would not change because the perpetrators carry a different purpose,” he said.

Another case he cited was an incident at the Hei Ling Chau drug rehabilitation centre on June 4, 2000, in which rioters set fire to buildings and attacked officers using stones, improvised weapons and other hard objects in a conflict with Vietnamese inmates.

That riot saw 38 officers and 71 inmates injured. The damage was put at HK$10 million. The recommended starting point for sentencing in that case was six years.

(SCMP) If you take part in a riot, then you have to face the consequences: it’s as simple as that. By Alex Lo. March 18, 2017.

The violent disturbance in Mong Kok during the Lunar New Year in 2016 was not a riot, according to the anti-government camp. Indeed, not a few pundits and lawmakers blamed Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and his government – and even Beijing – for causing the unrest. Well, now that the court has spoken, let’s see if those who shout the loudest about the rule of law will respect it this time.

In sentencing three protesters to three years in prison each yesterday, District Court judge Sham Siu-man concluded that the defendants were all part of the riot, during which they hurled glass bottles and a bamboo stick at police.

Students Hui Ka-ki, and Mak Tsz-hei, and cook Sit Tat-wing were convicted on one joint count of riot. The judge further observed they were part of a group of 20 to 30 people at the scene who took part in an unlawful assembly, where they displayed acts of violence that amounted to a breach of the peace.

“Violence is violence,” the judge said, rebutting the defence’s claim that the defendants didn’t do it for personal gain. He also compared their actions to the riots of Vietnamese boat people in the 1990s. As it is, I find the trio’s sentences overly harsh, considering no one was injured by their actions and in light of previous sentences for the riot.

A 17-year-old was spared jail and was placed on probation for 18 months. This guy hurled a brick at a police officer and injured his knee. In another case, three men were jailed for between 21 days and 9 months for pushing a police officer, resisting arrest, and throwing plastic bottles and rubbish bin.

But a riot is a riot. What I find troubling is that many people, whether they took part in the Mong Kok riot or other violent anti-government protests, seem to mistake prosecution for persecution.

Classic heroes of civil disobedience like Gandhi readily went to jail because they acknowledged they broke the law. Yet, so many of our rioters and protesters think they should not suffer any consequences or take responsibility for what they have done. And legions of pundits and lawmakers from the opposition camp are ever ready to excuse their behaviour and blame the police, the government and/or Beijing. They think that because most of them have been treated with kid gloves.

Internet comments:

- It was all a matter of timing. The actual sequence of events is:

May 2016: Ken Tsang convicted of assaulting police, sentence of 5 weeks in prison.
February 2017: Seven policemen convicted of assaulting Ken Tsang, sentence of 2 years in prison.
March 2017: Hui, Mak and Sit convicted of rioting, sentence of 3 years in prison.

The disparity between 5 weeks and 2 years led to almost 40,000 police officers holding an assembly to support their 7 fellow officers, and general reflection in society about whether the judiciary is fair or biased.

If Hui, Mak and Sit were sentenced to 5 weeks, all hell will break loose. So they just had to get a sentence heavier than 2 years.

- What if the sequence of events was ...?

May 2016: Ken Tsang convicted of assaulting police, sentence of 5 weeks in prison.
January 2017: Hui, Mak and Sit stood trial for rioting.
February 2017: Seven policemen convicted of assaulting Ken Tsang, sentence of 2 years in prison.

Hui, Mak and Sit might just be sentenced to 5 weeks too.

- The next case up is the sentencing for Yeung Ka-lun, for rioting plus arson. An earlier trial might have saved Hui, Mak and Sit a lot of jail time, but Yeung Ka-lun is doomed. Rioting starts with a 3-year jail term, but attempted arson carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

- As much as the judiciary wants you to believe that judges are fair and balanced, the reality is that judges are human beings with beliefs, emotions, dispositions and tempers. Here is what a court junkie wrote on the Friends of Court Facebook:

I was down at the Wanchai district court waiting for a trial to start. A couple of guys walked in and sat down close to me. By appearance, the two look like drug addicts. Here is their conversation:
M1: Who is the magistrate hearing your case?
M2: Some dude named Yuan.
M1: That's terrific. You should plead guilty whatever your charge is. Yuan is known to be a pussycat. You will probably just get probation. If you are unlucky, you could have gotten Sham instead. He is merciless. You should plead not guilty whatever your charge is, because there is at least a chance of being found not guilty.

- (Wen Wei Po) March 18, 2017. According to Hong Kong Indigenous, the sequence of events was:
(1) the police fired shots to kill (see video)
(2) three citizens who passed by the scene by chance ran away
(3) three citizens were arrested by the police and charged with rioting
(4) the judge said that running away is equal to participation in rioting

- Smart people use their mouths, stupid people use their hands.

The smart people here are

(1) Lau Siu-lai who told people to come out and support unlicensed vendors, and now she is earning $93,150 a month (plus perks) as Legislative Councilor

(2) Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) who started the riot by calling for an election rally for Edward Leung and led the charge against the police line. Ray Wong was captured later by the police and was found in possession of $530,000 and 100 Viagra pills.

(TVB) Ray Wong used the megaphone to shout: "If you want to play, we the people of Hong Kong ... we Hong Kong Indigenous ... we will surely play even bigger." Hong Kong Indigenous then got into formation.  "Three, two, one" and the blue jackets charged into the police line. That was how it started.

(3) Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous) started the riot by calling for an election rally. He is currently a researcher at Harvard University.


They came with banners that read: "Leung Tin Kei Edward, Candidate #6, spokesperson of Hong Kong Indigenous", and not "Support the fishball vendors".


Edward Leung in the centre, masked and hooded

The stupid people are the ones who will be spending the next three years in jail (minus Saturdays, Sundays and official holidays).

- Different people, different fates. Some people are making $100,000 per month as legislative councilors. Some people are going overseas to further their studies. Some people are traveling between Hong Kong and Taiwan to preach independence with Japan/Taiwan picking up all expenses. And then some people are going into the Bighouse.

- Famous saying from Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous): "Without the the Yellow Flowering Mound Uprising, there would be no Xinhai Revolution to overthrow the Manchurian dynasty." The resistance movement continues, and the impact of today's event on Hong Kong society is still unknown at this time.

- (Wen Wei Po) Ray Wong said that he knows all three defendants who are friends of Hong Kong Indigenous. So now all of a sudden, they aren't passersby anymore. No more "I came out of the karaoke onto Nathan Road and the police suddenly clubbed me on the head from behind" or "I was there just to take photographs (even though I didn't have a camera with me)."

- (Local Press) Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Ray Wong said that every Hongkonger should reflect on why young people choose the relatively costly and radical method of going into the streets.

- The answer is obvious: It was because they were stupid enough to listen to Ray Wong, who told them that it is their duty and that there would be no risk.

- Down the memory hole with Facebook to the day of the Mong Kok riot

Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion): Let the bricks fly (be careful about the people in front of you, I am standing in the front)
Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous): Please bring out everything that is inflammable.

- Valiant Frontier Facebook

First of all, we offer our deep condolences and expressions of anger to these three brave Hongkongers (warriors, frontline resisters)!

The valiant resistance against the law enforcement agency this time cannot be called a riot. According to the logic of the supporters of the seven canine dogs, provocateurs deserve to die. Who fired first at the masses? Isn't that a higher level of force? What was the excuse for the traffic police canine to fire his gun? If you shoot to kill, you must bear the consequences. Do you expect people to stand still, raise their hands and wait to be shot?

Calling this a riot is clearly political persecution. The masses did not come out at first to demonstrate. They came out to support the itinerant vendors and walk around the night market. Then they saw the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the police dogs chased the vendors off. Then they saw the police dog shoot at people in order to provoke them. Many people probably saw it on television and came out to support those who were subjected to excessive police violence!

The fierce demonstration that came out of the provocation did not result in shop windows being smashed or stores being looted, police cars were not toppled or burned, there were no bombs that caused deaths among policemen and pedestrians like in 1967. So how can this be called a riot? If this is a riot, then those jailed warriors should be awarded the Grand Bauhinia Medal ten years from now.

According to the media reports, the judge found the defendants guilty not on direct evidence. Many of his reasons were incomprehensible. While the esteemed judge may consider it to be obvious, I personally think ... we little people do not know what is appropriate, but commonsense tells us that much was unreasonable. We believe that the lawyers for the three warriors will appeal and get them justice.

- Hui Ka-ki is a student at University of Hong Kong. A conviction will result in a hearing with the Disciplinary Committee (see CAP 1053 University of Hong Kong Ordinance Statute XXXI Powers of the Disciplinary Committee):

Paragraph 2. (1) The Committee shall investigate and make findings upon any complaint ordered to be brought before it by the Vice-Chancellor against a student who is alleged to have committed any of the following—

(a) an offence for which the student has been convicted in any court of law;

...

Paragraph 4. (1) The Committee may order the imposition upon any student found to be guilty of any of the offences specified in paragraph 2 any of the following penalties— (L.N. 123 of 1994)

(a) reprimand: Provided that such reprimand shall form part of such student’s official record for the remainder of his or her studies in the curriculum concerned;
(b) fine (maximum to be determined from time to time by the Council);
(c) withdrawal of any academic or other University privilege, benefit, right to facility other than the right to follow courses of instruction and present himself for examinations;
(d) suspension; or
(e) expulsion from the University, and where applicable may require such student to make good any damage to property or premises caused by him:

- University of Hong Kong Council chairman Arthur Li will want Hui Ka-ki's head on a plate.

- (Ta Kung Pao) March 17, 2017. Hui Ka-ki is a fellow student of Edward Leung. In 2015, she answered the call of the HKU Student Union to blockade the HKU Council along with Billy Fung and Edward Leung. For the current case, Yau Wai-ching (Youngspiration), Chan Ho-tin (Hong Kong National Party) and Hong Kong Indigenous actively asked for "eyewitnesses" as well as videos taken that night. They said that the principal urgently needs witnesses to prove that the police are lying as well as made violent threats to the principal. When one netizen made a discovery, Chan Ho-tin said immediately that he will contact the principal. According to the "Yellow Umbrella Street Christian Grassroots Group, "we had a brother who was scheduled to appear in court. But this brother did not appear, and he refused to pick up his mobile phone." "Our original plan was to have this brother come down to the lawyer's office to make preparation ... we waited an entire morning, but this brother was a no-show ... we are somewhat angry, but also worried."

- Hui Ka-ki wants to be an English teacher. That won't be so easy if she has been convicted of an offence in a court of law. And because her jail term is 3 years, that record will not be 'spent' and will stick with her forever. Hui will be precluded from becoming a senior government official, lawyer, accountant, insurance broker, banker, corporate director, liquor license holder, immigrant to certain countries (such as the United States), etc.

- (Sing Tao) According to information, Hui Ka-ki was arrested in relation to The Bomb Factory in Ho Chung, Sai Kung District, New Territories East. At the time, she had proof that she was not present during the bomb tests at the abandoned ATV studio. Therefore she was not prosecuted, but her boyfriend was.

- At the Mong Kok riot, Ray Wong fled the scene and went into hiding.
At the siege of the China Liaison Office, Leung Chung-hung showed us how to flee in a taxi.
These Localists heroes called it "resisting arrest."
Now we have three rioters being sentenced to 3 years in jail.
What do the Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) say? They told the three to serve their prison terms patiently. They said that the three tragic cases will awaken the people to Hong to rise up and overthrow the tyrannical regime.
And then the three will come out of jail to heroes' welcome.
Well, if this is true, then who don't Ray Wong and Edward Leung of Hong Kong Indigenous sit down pat and wait patiently to be sent to jail? Why do others go to jail while these two seek political asylum and flee?
The word "despicable" does not even come remotely close to describing them.

- (Hong Kong National Party) History Will Acquit Us

The Mongkok Uprising last Lunar New Year’s Eve happened as no mere coincidence – for all the rights that the armed forces has abused on the Mongkok streets, and for all the years that the Chinese Colonial government has exercised their tyranny upon us, it came as no surprise that the inevitable reaction should finally swing back, as a pendulum, signalling the beginning of an opposite force, in equal power, flying straight towards the defences of our oppressors. The significance of the Uprising proves to be overwhelming, as our Colonial governors are still, after more than a year, arresting the least suspected bystanders and suing them for the most severe of accusations.

Just yesterday we saw three such “Rioters” sentenced to 3 years each. The HKNP holds the steadfast belief that all these three Hong Kongers are innocent. The burden now lies on our judiciary to prove itself as a just arm of Hong Kong, and judge the case accordingly. Our Party would volunteer any possible support for the 3, and since the family of the first accused has declined the Hong Kong public’s financial support, it thus falls to us all to stay ever the more vigilant, and spring into action to provide whatever help agreeable to the families, shall and when any difficulty befall these 3, unjustly accused.

Shall any member of the Hong Kong public be able to provide relevant pieces of evidence for the 3’s future appeals, be they testimonies or exhibits, please contact the HKNP post-haste. The HKNP shall then relay the information to the families and their lawyers.

Times such as these call for support not just from individual persons, but from networks. Thus to all Hong Kongers, you who are anti-tyranny and who are currently running a business, no matter its size or its industry, the HKNP asks of you to consider the personal sacrifices these revolutionaries have made. These are the people who threw their future away for the good of Hong Kong, and these are the families who are now in great distress, for they bear the oppression of our Chinese overlords for us all. With great urgency the HKNP and Hong Kong asks of you: consider their sacrifices, and offer them employment. Please contact us if you are willing to do your own part for Hong Kong’s future as a business owner.

It is only when the government realises we pose a real threat to them do they bother to show their fangs. Dismay not, Hong Kongers, for there is no stopping the inevitable turn of history’s wheel. Just as it was the Chinese Colonialists who begat Hong Kong’s nationalist independence, so did the rise of our nationalist movement beget the desperate convictions of all those dissenters and revolutionaries amongst us. A benevolent ruler may not see uprisings, and a failing nationalist movement may not see unjust rulings. Remember that one day too the Chinese Colonialists will pass, and the unjustly accused shall be judged guiltless, when the Trial of Time and the Arm of History shall prove the innocence and freedom of all Hong Kongers once and for all.

- (HKG Pao) March 20, 2017.

According to Key Opinion Leader Lewis Loud, he "contacted a number of volunteers who are assisting the third defendant Sit Tat-wing" and learned about the situation of the Sit family. Sit's mother suffers from diabetes and his elder brother has mental illness. Sit is the sole economic support for the family. If Sit goes to jail for 3 years, the family intends to apply for social welfare. However, this may not be immediately approved. Lewis Loud offered to be an intermediary to forward all donations to the volunteers.

- Why should the Localists donate one cent to Sit Tat-wing?

On one hand, Sit Tat-wing testified in court that he was singing karaoke at Neway in the Chong Hing Building in Mong Kok. When he came out of the building, he saw a riot in the street. He said that he did not throw any glass bottles. Soon people began running and he ran with them. He was tackled by the police. If the Localists believe this story, then Sit Tat-wing is a Hong Kong pig. Localists should only donate to valiant resisters, never to Hong Kong pigs.

On the other hand, Sit Tat-wing was in fact a valiant warrior who tried to defend the rights of unlicensed itinerant vendors and protect the people from the evil police who were shooting to kill. He engaged in valiant resistance by throwing glass bottles at the police in the frontline trenches. If so, then Sit Tat-wing committed perjury in court with his testimony about singing karaoke etc. So if the Localists really want to help Sit, they must not give him any financial support.

- Shortly after the Mong Kok riot, Hong Kong Indigenous ran a crowdfunding campaign to raise more than HK$1 million dedicated to helping the arrestees. When their spokesperson Ray Wong was arrested with $530,000 in cash plus 100 Viagra pills, they said that the money was not related to the fund and Viagra pills are popular in Hong Kong. At the time, Hong Kong Indigenous promised that they will be transparent about the $1+ million. So where the fuck did it go? Here is Sit Tat-wing, arrested and convicted for rioting in Mong Kok. Has he ever received a cent from Hong Kong Indigenous?

- (Oriental Daily) March 21, 2017. There is the obligatory "Dog Judge" and other insults to Judge Sham Siu-man, as well as calls to "hunt and kill."

(Hong Kong Independence Movement) $300,000 bounty to hunt for Dog Judge Sham Siu-man.
23-year-old HKU female student-warrior Hui Ka-ki, 20year-old student-warrior Mak Tsz-hei and 33-year-old cook-warrior Sit Tat-wing were found guilty of rioting by the Hong Kong Communist Dog Judge Sham Siu-man and sentenced to three years in prison. Against this immoral judgment, the I Am Hongkonger Alliance strongly condemns the Hong Kong Communist regime and offers $300,000 to arrest the Dog Judge Sham Siu-man to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in order to defend the tradition of judicial independence in Hong Kong.

- Ah, I totally get this: Rule-of-law and judicial independence are to be defended by arresting and punishing the judges whose verdicts you don't like. Once the first judge gets the death penalty, the rest will roll over like lapdogs.

(Wen Wei Po) February 8, 2017.

Joshua Wong recently posted a photo on his Facebook to say that he is in the United Kingdom right now. [Compared to the fanfare of his Taipei trip (see A Tale of Two Cities), this one was not pre-announced so that nobody was at the airport to send him off.]

The first stop was to go to Westminster to meet with Labour Party MP and shadow Foreign Office Minister to make a presentation on the state of democracy in Hong Kong. "At the meeting, I mentioned that this will be the 20th anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty. Therefore the United Kingdom can hold a parliamentary hearing on the situation in Hong Kong. Catherine West said that they will try to arrange for such a hearing over the next few months and continue to pay attention to Hong Kong matters inside and outside Parliament."

Later on BBC World News, Joshua Wong said that on this 20th anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty, "the Chinese Communists are trying to disqualify legislators and make them bankrupt, and to destroy the separation of powers."

During the BBC interview, he also criticized the opposition: "When the pro-establishment candidates are advocating Article 23 legislation, it is time for the democrats to voice their opposition to Article 23 once more. As the opposition, we must firmly defend this bottom line. We cannot let the democratic movement slide backwards."

- DAB legislator Horace Cheung said that Joshua Wong and his ilk want to apply pressure on the Central Government and the Hong Kong SAR government through foreign forces, in order to gain media exposure and foreign financial aid for themselves. But they keep repeating the same old things to the foreign politicians, as if they are reciting the same piece of text.

- FTU legislator Michael Luk said that this is 20 years after Hong Kong was returned to China, and Hong Kong affairs should be handled by Hong Kong itself (as opposed to by the British Parliament or the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee). As such, Joshua Wong and others are being naive. Are there some secret backroom deals behind all these trips to beg for interference by foreign forces in Hong Kong?

- Legislator Chan Kin-por said that if we want to implement the spirit of One Country Two Systems, then Hong Kong affairs should be handled by Hong Kong itself. After all, this is already 20 years after the handover. As a Chinese, Joshua Wong advocates his so-called "self-determination" but he runs around the world asking for other countries to interfere in Hong Kong. This is a waste of time and effort, and shows that he has no morality and feelings to speak of.

- When legislator Chu Hoi Dick went to London, he also met with Catherine West (see Chu Hoi Dick Goes West). West is a Member of Parliament for the opposition Labour Party. The influential person that Joshua Wong really wants to meet is Boris Johnson, Conservative MP and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Johnston is the real thing, and West is only a shadow. As a member of the ruling party, Johnson probably won't even have the courtesy to make a reply to any request for a meeting by Joshua Wong.

The difference is that the ruling party represents the official position of the British government. If Boris Johnson meets with Joshua Wong, China will lodge an official protest with the British government and make retaliation (canceling state visits, trade talks, etc). Meanwhile Joshua Wong can meet as often as he likes with the opposition because it won't matter. If the Labour Party should become the ruling party again, they will do exactly the same as the Conservative Party now. It is in the nature of all ruling parties to act in the best interests of the United Kingdom. And it is in the nature of all opposition parties to automatically gainsay.

- Although some Localists insist that the people of Hong Kong are a completely different race from the Chinese people, their thinking is tainted with Chinese tradition. In Chinese folklore, the Emperor is infinitely wise and benevolent, but he is surrounded by sycophants who give him false information. So the solution to any and all problems is to petition the Emperor or whoever may be the relevant authority (such as Judge "Clear Skies" Bao) directly.

The pan-democrats have a Theory of Two Centrals. The Xi Jinping Core Central represents the good guys. The Zhang Dejiang-Zhang Xiaoming clique Central represents the bad guys who are feeding false information to the good guys. For example, in The Students' Petition Trip, the premise is that the students had to reach Xi Jinping/Li Keqiang to tell them what is really going on in Hong Kong and then everything will be hunky dory. Unfortunately CY Leung conspired with Zhang Xiaoming to prevent the students from even getting out of Hong Kong.

If you want independence/self-determination, then it makes no sense to be petitioning Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. You even don't acknowledge or trust their authority in this or any other matter. So you have to petition the ex-sovereign (United Kingdom) and the most powerful nation in the history of mankind (namely, the United States). And because you need them for favors, you are going to avoid any criticism of them. You cannot call Donald Trump the next Hitler one minute, and then thank him for sending the Seventh Fleet to liberate Hong Kong the next minute.

But as with the Theory of Two Centrals, you probably think that these foreigners are ignorant of what has been going on in Hong Kong. So you present them with the 'facts.' Here, for example, is the explanation of the Fishball Revolution in the Demosisto Facebook:

... During the Lunar New Year of 2016, the Food and Environmental Hygiene cracked down heavily on unlicensed vendors and reduce the space for this Hong Kong tradition. Hong Kong Indigenous and other organizations organized to support the vendors on Lunar New Year's Day. The intervention by the police raised the temperaments. After pepper spray was used many times, the demonstrators began to retaliate by throwing water bottles, garbage bins, wooden poles and other miscellaneous items. At that moment, one traffic policeman charged alone into the crowd and swung his baton at people. He was surrounded and attacked by demonstrators. At this moment, another traffic policeman fired warning shots. This upset the demonstrators that they eventually threw bricks at the police. An assembly thus became a violent clash ...

- As captured on television news, Hong Kong Indigenous did not hold the assembly to support any unlicensed vendors. They announced that they were exercising the right of New Territories East Legislative Council by-election candidate Edward Leung (of Hong Kong Indigenous) to hold a political rally. And since they were less than 30 in numbers, they did not need prior notification to or approval by the police. They chanted slogans such as "I am a Hongkonger" and "Down with the Communist Party." The police merely watched them. When the action proved not media-genic enough, they charged the police line.

- Here is Hong Kong Indigenous' Facebook on that night:

Hong Kong Indigenous announced that it will use the election rights of candidate Edward Leung to immediately conduct a march at the Mong Kok night market. Since the number of participants is fewer than 30, there is no need to notify the police beforehand or obtain their permission. Please follow us to offer support in Mong Kok!
If you do this, we will do that! Today we will start the New Year for the government!
Just in case, we also urge you to bring goggles, masks, water and protective gear. Thanks!
#Election advertisement (helmets, for safety only)

(TVB) Ray Wong used the megaphone to shout: "If you want to play, we the people of Hong Kong ... we Hong Kong Indigenous ... we will surely play even bigger." Hong Kong Indigenous then got into formation.  "Three, two, one" and the blue jackets charged into the police line. That was how it started.


Ray Wong is in the middle of the scrum in this Apple Daily photo

During the nightlong rioting, the unlicensed vendors continued to operate. They were not even aware of the gun-shots or brick-throwing down the street.

As for the the two traffic policemen, you can watch the video yourselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlwYF6qEdWw. Or look at the start of this Cable TV news report and see how "One traffic policeman charged alone into the crowd and swung his baton at people. He was surrounded and attacked by demonstrators."

- All politicians know that people cannot be trusted to tell them the truth when asking for favors. Smart politicians will seek independent verification. Depending on the political situation, the politicians may or may not respect the facts. If it suits their own interests, they may even accept your untruths, or they can reject your truths.

For the ruling Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, Joshua Wong presents no advantage and every disadvantage. The United Kingdom is in no position to impose on China. For the opposition Labour Party, Joshua Wong presents a talking point to chip away at the ruling party, but this won't be a make-or-break issue in the next election.

The true purpose of this trip is not really to get the United Kingdom to intervene on Hong Kong. That won't happen, and everybody knows it. This trip was made to get Joshua Wong more media exposure, so that Demosisto can raise even more money inside and outside Hong Kong. And when they raise more money, they can send Joshua Wong to go around the world and raise more money. The means is the end, which is to raise more money.

(Oriental Daily) February 8, 2017.

During a media interview, Joshua Wong mentioned the disqualification of legislators-elect Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. He said that Leung and Yau had completed their oaths of office already. He said that this shows that the Beijing government is oppressing Hongkongers who want democracy.

- Did Leung and Yau complete their Oaths of Office?

(Hong Kong Free Press) October 12, 2016.

Kenneth Chen Wei-on, the top official of the Legislative Council Secretariat, rejected the oaths of incoming lawmakers Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chun-hang, Yau Wai-ching, and Edward Yiu Chung-yim. All three added new phrases to their oaths. Chen questioned whether Leung and Yau understood their oaths, as they displayed a flag that read “Hong Kong is not China” – potentially contradicting the oath’s wording.

However, Baggio Leung insisted he and Yau have completed their oaths, and it was the responsibility of the LegCo secretariat to confirm them. Both Leung and Yau once read “China” as “Chee-na.” Yau referred to the “People’s Republic of China” as the “People’s Refucking of Chee-na.”

In response, Leung claimed that the different pronunciation of words in their oaths were because of their accents. He said he has an Ap Lei Chau accent.

According to the LegCo’s rules of procedures, “no Member of the Council shall attend a meeting or vote therein until he has made or subscribed an oath or affirmation in accordance with the provisions of the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (Cap. 11).” The Ordinance stipulates that the oaths of LegCo members should be taken at the first sitting of the session after a general election and before the election of the LegCo president which “shall be administered by the Clerk to the Council.”

Video: Youngspiration's Sixtus "Baggio" Leung Chung-hang takes his oath at the Hong Kong legislature

Video: Youngspiration's Yau Wai-ching takes her oath at the Hong Kong legislature

- Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching do not need the help of ex-Governors of Hong Kong. They need $MONEY$ to pay for their legal bills and fine wine. Can Wilson and Rifkind help them?

(Oriental Daily) February 9, 2017.

Next on the agenda was a meeting with former Hong Kong governor Lord David Wilson. Joshua Wong said that although Lord Wilson retired many years ago, he is still very concerned about constitutional and democratic developments in Hong Kong. Lord Wilson also questioned why the Hong Kong democrats rejected the 2017 constitutional reform bill so that the citizens lost the chance to elect their Chief Executive via one-person-one-vote.

Joshua Wong explained to Lord Wilson that the National People's Congress Standing Committee's August 31st resolution stipulates that the Chief Executive candidate must receive the support of more than half of the nomination committee. That was why they opposed the constitutional reform bill. He said that no constitutional reform will be passed in the Legislative Council as long as the August 31st resolution stays. Wong did not say what Lord Wilson said in reaction. He merely said that there was a difference of opinion. That is to say, Lord Wilson does not agree with Wong.

- With respect to President Donald Trump's impact on China and Hong Kong, Joshua Wong said that it is a good start for the development of democracy in Hong Kong because President Trump called Taiwan leader Tsai Ing-wen and the US Senate is considering legislation to sanction Hong Kong, etc. At a time when human rights organizations and democratic movements all around the world are condemning Donald Trump, Joshua Wong is praising Trump's good work. This as unfathomable as Anson Chan's appearance at Donald Trump's inauguration ceremony (see An Old Battery).

- On Joshua Wong's Facebook, he said that he also met with Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who was the Foreign Minister at the time of the 1997 handover. Wong said frankly that there is a difference of opinion between himself and Wilson/Rifkind on the issue of democratization in Hong Kong. Wong said he was unhappy with the attitude of the United Kingdom back then, including vetoing direct elections in 1988.

- I wonder if Wilson/Rifkind pointed out the obvious to Joshua Wong. In 2015, the Hong Kong government presented a constitutional reform bill to the Legislative Council that included one-person-one-vote for the Chief Executive election in 2017. The United States and the United Kingdom (including people such as Lord David Wilson and Sir Malcom Rifkind) told the pan-democrats to take the proposal and run. The pan-democrats vetoed instead. Now we are in 2017. The pan-democrats have 325 of the 1,194 Election Committee voters. They seem to want John Tsang as the Lesser Evil, and John Tsang seems to be preferred by the majority of the people. But by their veto of the 2015 bill, Carrie Lam will probably win in the Election Committee and become the next Chief Executive. Why was this a good thing? Why didn't the democrats take the 2015 bill?

Chances are that Wilson and Rifkind told Joshua Wong just that. But so far the only description of the meetings come from Joshua Wong, and we don't expect him to tell all.

- Chiu The Dragon Facebook:

(Oriental Daily) February 9, 2017.

Joshua Wong made a joint appearance with Causeway Bay Books owner Gui Minhai's daughter Angela Gui. Wong said that One Country Two Systems has failed, because the Causeway Bay Books case shows that it is only One Country 1.8 Systems, or even 1.5 Systems. Wong said that he was dissatisfied with the British government for failing to keep watch over the implementation of One Country Two Systems. Joshua Wong denied that he supports Hong Kong independence.

- (The Case of Gui Minhai) Swedish national Gui Minhai went from Thailand to China without going through Hong Kong. So there has nothing to do with One Country Two Systems. His crime in China has to do with a drunk driving case in which he violated the terms of his probation. It has nothing to do with publishing banned books.

Is the argument that because Gui Minhai publishes banned books, he cannot be held accountable for all his other crimes (such as drunk driving and killing a female university student)?

(The Stand) January 17, 2016. Apple Daily cited an informed source close to Gui Minhai that Gui's daughter Angela has made a statement: (1) It is impossible for her to determine the veracity of the traffic incident that occurred more than 10 years ago; (2) she has never heard her parents mention this incident before.

Is the argument that because Gui Minhai never told his daughter that he killed a female university student while driving under the influence, then it never happened?

- Adolf Hitler never said anything about the Holocaust to anyone, so he it never happened.

(Hong Kong Free Press) April 22, 2017.

Gui Minhai, a Chinese-born scholar and book publisher has been honoured by a Swedish press rights group for his struggle for freedom of speech in his native country. “Gui Minhai has stood up for press freedom and challenged the regime’s attempt to scare (dissidents) to silence,” the club said on Wednesday.

Called Publicistklubben in Swedish, the organisation says it safeguards freedom of speech and promotes debate. Each year, it bestows an award for reporters and publishers in memory of Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian journalist and human rights activist.

Minhai is a 52-year-old Swedish citizen and a Hong Kong publisher who wrote political gossip books about Chinese leaders often from the Chinese Communist Party. He was kidnapped in 2015 while on vacation in Thailand and has been detained at an undisclosed location in China ever since.

In 2016, Minhai appeared on Chinese television and was purportedly forced to confess a traffic violation that he “perhaps even didn’t commit,” Publicistklubben said in a statement. “The regime’s scandalous treatment of Minhai must be forcefully condemned and given much greater attention,” said Bjorn Hager, chairman of Publicistklubben.

Contacted by AFP in Beijing, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said said he had “no interest in commenting on the activities of NGOs”.

Support levels for the four Chief Executive candidates
John Tsang, 41.7%
Carrie Lam, 25.0%
Woo Kwok-hing, 8.7%
Regina Ip, 5.9%

Support levels between John Tsang and Carrie Lam only
John Tsang, 53.6%
Carrie Lam, 31.2%
[Of Regina Ip's supporters, 60% went to Carrie Lam and 25% to John Tsang. Of Woo Kwok-hing's supporters, 70% went to John Tsang and 10% went to Carrie Lam.]

Should the constitutional reform process (about the Chief Executive election) be re-started?
Yes, 64%
No, 15%

(Hong Kong Free Press) December 12, 2016.

The pro-democracy camp has seen a landslide in at least six sectors of Sunday’s Chief Executive Election Committee poll, and expects to win at least 325 seats in the 1,200-seat committee. Many of the winners belong to a list of 352 candidates from the election alliance Democracy 300+, which initially was formed to gain seats to stop sitting Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying from getting re-elected and to call for a change of election system to achieve genuine universal suffrage.

Charles Mok, IT sector lawmaker, said the goal of the alliance was not only to stop Leung from being re-elected. “We need to defend Hong Kong’s core values, and fight for the restart of the political reform process, outside the August 31 framework [set in 2014],” he said. “No matter which person the central government wants to handpick… the voices made by these professional sectors are very clear. We beat our opponents by large margins.”

The Policy Platform of John Tsang:

(4) Political Reform

21. The Chief Executive and all Members of the Legislative Council should be elected by universal suffrage (dual universal suffrage); this is the ultimate goal for the Hong Kong's political development as provided for in the Basic Law. This is also what Hong Kong people want.

22. The National People's Congress Standing Committee decided on 29 December 2007 that in 2017 the fifth Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) shall be elected by universal suffrage; and thereafter Members of the Legislative Council shall be elected by universal suffrage.

23. To realize the goal of electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, the HKSAR Government proposed in 2015, according to the relevant decision of the National People's Congress, to amend the method to elect the Chief Executive. The bill failed to secure the votes of two-thirds of the Legislative Council Members; as a result neither the election of Chief Executive in 2017 nor of the following election of Legislative Council Members could be conducted by universal suffrage.

24. Before the realization of “dual universal suffrage”, the debate on political reform will not abate; the fight for “dual universal suffrage” will continue; there will be continual challenge to the government's legitimacy; and the policies to improve livelihood and promote economic development will be scuttled by political debates. For the sake of our society's stability and good governance, we must therefore, with the greatest determination and courage, restart the process to amend the procedure to elect the Chief Executive during the next term of the government, and strive to put in place “dual universal suffrage” as soon as practicable.

25. I know that some people in our community object to restarting the political reform. Those opposing have pointed out that, the reform plan proposed during the current term of the government caused great controversies, and triggered a large scale “occupy Central” movement which severely disturbed people's daily livelihood and resulted in immense social tension. As the proposal ultimately failed to be passed by the Legislative Council, the government has wasted a lot of resources. Some are of the view that as long as the Central Government and the pan Democrats maintain their respective bottom lines, it would be futile to restart the reform process.

26. This view above is not ungrounded. Indeed, if we were to make proposals without prior thoughtful preparatory work to forge a broader consensus in the community, we would likely repeat the past mistakes. That said, the issue of political reform must be resolved. I do not underestimate the difficulties of achieving consensus on the political reform. But I believe if we could formulate a CE election plan which is acceptable to different quarters, that will be a big step forward for Hong Kong's political system, and both Hong Kong people and the “One Country Two Systems” will be winners. On the other hand, both will be losers if we stand still and do nothing.

27. I will, with utmost sincerity, closely communicate with different groups and political parties, and facilitate dialogues among these groups/parties and that with the Central Government, with a view to removing misunderstandings, narrowing differences, finding common grounds and building consensus. When the time is ripe, we will make concrete proposals to meet the people's aspiration for universal suffrage.

 (5) Article 23 of the Basic Law

Vision

28. According to the Basic Law Article 23, it is the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR)'s constitutional duty to enact local legislation to protect national security. Such measure is also the requisite condition for not applying the national security laws in Hong Kong.

29. In 2002 the HKSAR Government proposed the “National Security (Legislative Provisions) Bill” which met with strong opposition and had to be withdrawn eventually.

30. Since then, no similar bill has been introduced. The Basic Law has now been implemented in Hong Kong for close to 20 years. There is no reason for the HKSAR Government to delay the enactment of local legislation in accordance with Article 23 any longer. I believe the main concern is not about whether to legislate or not, but about the details of the law and the legislative procedures. We will learn from the past mistakes and do our best to legislate for Article 23 with a view to safeguarding the security of our country and Hong Kong and making a law acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.

Specific Measures

31. Full consultation -- Thorough public consultation is a must, including publishing a proposed legislation in the form of a “white bill”.

32. Address concerns -- We must be sensitive to the reasonable concerns expressed by political groups, the community and the mass media, and ensure that the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong are fully protected while safeguarding national security.

33. Step by step approach -- We could enact the law in stages, starting with the less controversial issues.

(Wikipedia) In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, when performing an action that contradicts those beliefs, ideas, and values; or when confronted with new information that contradicts existing beliefs, ideas, and values. A person who experiences inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and so is motivated to try to reduce the cognitive dissonance occurring, and actively avoids situations and information likely to increase the psychological discomfort.

As such, people reduce their cognitive dissonance in four ways:

  1. Change the behavior or the cognition
  2. Justify the behavior or the cognition, by changing the conflicting cognition
  3. Justify the behavior or the cognition, by adding new cognitions
  4. Ignore or deny information that conflicts with existing beliefs

Commercial Radio 881 News

There was an anti-Carrie Lam, anti-anointment demonstration march by 150 persons from Causeway Bay to the home of Chief Executive candidate Carrie Lam at Convention Plaza Apartments. The organizer Hon Lin-shan of the Genuine Universal Suffrage To Save Hong Kong Grand Alliance said that they are opposed to the small-circle election and that none of the pro-establishment Chief Executive candidates can be trusted, especially Carrie Lam. If Lam is elected, she will continue CY Leung's route. In recent days, the election campaign of Carrie Lam is giving sign that she is being supported by the Central Government. Therefore citizens need to come out and express their views. Hon Lin-shan said that if the pro-democracy electors come out at the last moment to vote for John Tsang, citizens will understand and forgive them because this is the lesser of two evils. However, they are firmly opposed to small-circle election. The only Chief Executive who conveys the will of the citizens is one who is elected by civil nomination.

I WANT GENUINE UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE
I WANT JOHN TSANG

(The Stand News) From "I want genuine universal suffrage" to "I want John Tsang" -- What are the fans of Mr. Pringle thinking? February 3, 2017.

At 330am on January 19 in a building in Central, John Tsang announced that he was running for Chief Executive.

Veteran finance worker and Internet show host Gordon Poon watched live at the scene. He emphasized that he is not a fan of John Tsang, but he was there to witness history. "From 1997 to now, have we been repressed severely? This is the only time that we come near to subverting something ... this is the sole opportunity for Hong Kong since 1997."

"I feel that the Central Government does not think that John Tsang will be sufficiently under control. Therefore we must support a person who has the chance to make them a little bit unhappy." Poon believes that this is a form of resistance.

At the same time, Andy watched the live broadcast over John Tsang's Facebook and came away with a good impression. "You see that his appearance is kindly and righteous. The appearance reflects what is inside the heart." Inevitably he thought of another candidate: "Carrie Lam looks wicked. As soon as something negative comes up, her expression darkens."

"Although Tsang is pro-establishment, there are good and evil people within the establishment. I would rather have a good one than an evil one." Andy said firmly.

The middle-aged man Mr. Choi from the manufacturing industry was also watching the screen attentively for John Tsang's announcement.

"I will support him for strategic reasons. But I also appreciate his style as a person. His strategy for this election is also brilliant." The next day, he even went out to buy a bag of potato chips at the convenience store.

These three John Tsang supporters have the common feature of being pro-democracy. They took part in the Umbrella Movement.

Gordon Poon's tent was right across Admiral Centre. He has spoken at street forums, and he has lectured at the Mobile Democracy Classroom. Andy is nicknamed Captain America. He was active in the Occupy Mong Kok area and a member of the Shopping Revolutionaries (9wu). He has been arrested. Mr. Choi is a grassroots citizen. He did not stand on the frontlines of the Umbrella Movement but he is a dedicated supporter. Today his Facebook icon is still a yellow umbrella.

This time, they are all supporting John Tsang. Why?

On January 19, John Tsang formally announced his candidacy. A debate arose within the non-establishment camp: who should the 326 pan-democrats nominate/vote for?

As the nomination period approaches, the debate has begun with two major camps: the principles camp and the pragmatic camp.

The Principles Camp treats their principles are being most important. They don't want to act as kingmakers. Since Democracy 300+ included "withdrawal of the August 31st resolution" as part of their policy platform, they must not support any pro-establishment candidate such as John Tsang who supports the August 31st resolution. If they support John Tsang, it will do zero good for the democracy movement in Hong Kong. So they would rather vote for a pan-democratic candidate such as Leung Kwok-hung through civil nomination. The self-determination legislative councilors such as Chu Hoi Dick and Nathan Law have recently expressed such views.

Nathan Law wrote: "Ideals and principles are the forces that drove us forward against the rain and wind in the heavy storm. Without them, we will fall."

The Pragmatic Camp prefers to look at the political reality. They believe that Woo Kwok Hing and Leung Kwok-hung have no chance of winning. The only one who is capable of giving Carrie Lam (who is continuing the line of CY Leung) a fight is John Tsang. Therefore they will choose the lesser of two evils. At this time, the pan-democrats should support the lesser evil John Tsang so that Hong Kong can recuperate/rehabilitate/recover.

Recently Civic Party legislator Dennis Kwok said that the Democracy 300+ electors are leaning towards nominating Woo Kwok-hing and John Tsang. Another pan-democratic elector told the reporters that "there will be enough nominations for John Tsang." The signs are that there are quite a few people in the Pragmatic Camp.

Among the masses, the Pragmatic Camp dominates. Over the past two weeks, any Internet essay expressing doubts about John Tsang was certain to receive a lot of critical comments: "Are you helping Carrie Lam's campaign?" When John Tsang brought out his crowdfunding campaign, the response was enthusiastic. The web page was paralyzed within three minutes as tens of thousands of people poured in.

Among John Tsang's supporters, many support democracy and chanted "I want genuine universal suffrage" previously. The Ming Pao-HKU POP poll showed that 60% of self-identified democrats support John Tsang as Chief Executive if they have to choose one among the four announced candidates.

Why do these pro-democracy citizens stand opposite to the popular opinion leaders such as Chu Hoi Dick, Nathan Law, Leung Kwok-hung and others?

"I am very certain that the majority of the 7 million people in Hong Kong feel John Tsang is a suitable Chief Executive. They don't belong to any camp or group. They are just picking the best among the many candidates."

Gordon Poon is a veteran financial worker and an Internet show host. Ever since John Tsang announced his candidacy, he has been calling for the pan-democrats to follow public opinion to support John Tsang. He said that the Central Government wants Carrie Lam to become Chief Executive, and they do not trust John Tsang. In order to resist Beijing, the people of Hong Kong must support "a person who can make the Central Government a bit unhappy."

"We want to let the Central Government know that the person that they like may not be the person that Hong Kong likes. Under One Country Two Systems, the people of Hong Kong can do whatever they want."

Poon emphasized that this is a form of resistance. "From 1997 to now, haven't we been repressed too severely? This is the only time that we get close to being able to subvert something."

Poon's thinking is close to that of 40-something-year-old Mr. Choi who works in the manufacturing industry. With respect to the talk about choosing the lesser of two evils, Mr. Choi does not regard that as being important.

"The important thing is to show the Chinese Communists that we have the ability to resist. We are not the mantis trying to stop the cart with its arms. When Democracy 300+ were elected, weren't they supposed to stop the control by the Central Government?"

In other words, supporting John Tsang is a strategy to show the will of the people of Hong to resist to the Central Government. Mr. Choi made an analogy: David defeats Goliath not by force but by using the rock. In other words, the people of Hong Kong is David, the Chinese Communists are Goliath and John Tsang is the rock.

Can John Tsang really become this rock? The reporter asked.

Mr. Choi said frankly that he does not know. "But you can't fight with a blade of grass." He continued. "The rock may drop and hit your toe, but it can also be used to strike the enemy. If you are afraid of the rock, the giant will smash your head in. It is that simple!" Ever since John Tsang announced his candidacy and started his Internet promotion, Mr. Choi has "liked" almost every post. He did it in order to create the atmosphere and increase the support level in order to have the ability to resist the Central Government."

"Do not laugh at me for being used. I should say that I am using him." Choi said.

In Captain America Andy's view, supporting John Tsang is also a strategy. The ultimate goal is to stop Carrie Lam from winning. "I am very worried that Carrie Lam will become CY 2.0. Her goal is to continue the line of 689." Andy is worried that after Carrie Lam is elected, she will build more "useless things" like the Palace Museum, suppress freedom of speech and enact Basic Law Article 23 legislation. "Hong Kong is being turned red. In the end, it will be indistinguishable from any other Chinese city." Without doubt, this is the concern of Hong Kong people after the past 5 years.

"At least, John Tsang won't be like Carrie Lam. She shines the shoes of the Central Government all the time. The damage from John Tsang to Hong Kong will be minimal."

Although the support for Mr. Pringle is based upon strategic considerations, many supporters think that he has desirable qualities in image, character and style.

Andy likes Tsang for his friendliness. "You look at his exterior appearance. He is friendly. He is not strong and abrasive." The comparison is naturally with Carrie Lam. "Carrie Lam is a ruthless person, like the character Qiu Qianchi in Jin Rong's novel. She could release darts from her mouth."

In his election declaration, John Tsang spoke of "recuperate/rehabilitate/recover." This created widespread discussion. Andy who was involved in many valiant resistance actions and was arrested in the Mong Kok riot agreed with John Tsang's attempt to mend social rifts. "Frankly, if the Chief Executive handles things well, many people won't be out there resisting even if they don't have universal suffrage."

Since 2003, Mr. Choi has almost been to all the large-scale pro-democracy actions. He says that he is fatigued from attending too many demonstrators. He believes that "recuperate/rehabilitate/recover" is not the same as "do nothing" and Tsang's style will make it easier on citizens.

Gordon Poon emphasized that he is not a John Tsang fan. "Don't get me wrong. I don't think that John Tsang is so great." Nevertheless he displayed certain admiration for John Tsang. "Do you think that you will do better than John Tsang? Do you think that you can solve the problems within the government? Do you think that the Central Government will appoint you? How many financial crises have you dealt with? Have you worked for the government for 30 years? Did you study at the two universities (MIT and Harvard University)?"

Poon even compared John Tsang with Anson Chan. "Both were Administrative Officers. They worked closely with Chris Patten during the British colonial era. Both of them received western education. Both of them speak gently." Before leaving her job in 2001, Chief Secretary Anson Chan was praised as "the Conscience of Hong Kong." Poon said that he admires Mrs. Chan and was sad that she had to leave her job. "That day, I really wanted her not to quit. Sometimes I fantasize how things would have been if only she became Chief Executive."

At the time, Poon thought that Anson Chan was someone who was willing to strive for democracy by working within the system. Today, he said that John Tsang is the same. "If John Tsang is leading Hong Kong from within the system, isn't that the same as the second coming of Anson Chan?" He said: "If I can give you a second chance, wouldn't you take it?"

In the end, Gordon Poon wants a suitable person to maintain "One Country Two Systems" and "a high degree of autonomy" under the framework of the Basic Law and to defend the core values of Hong Kong. He very much wants John Tsang to win by a large majority. "He will have the strength to fight the Central Government. When this man has public opinion behind him and he is authorized by the people of Hong Kong, it will be tough for the Central Government to fight with him."

For example, "If Lee Bo were arrested, John Tsang would tell the relevant officials 'Hey, this is a Hong Kong citizen. What happened to him?' It will be embarrassing for the the Central Government."

This is what the John Tsang supporters imagine will happen.

Over the past several weeks, the non-establishment camp has been quarreling over whether to support John Tsang or not. Many pro-democracy citizens lean towards John Tsang whereas the legislative councilors Chu Hoi Dick, Nathan Law and Leung Kwok-hung said that they cannot support the anti-democracy John Tsang based upon the principles of democracy.

How is John Tsang anti-democracy? After announcing his candidacy, John Tsang made it clear that the re-start of the constitutional reform process must be based upon the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee. Thereafter the various sides must try to reach a compromise. If the process is re-started in the same atmosphere as in 2014, it would be irresponsible. Thus, he will not re-start the constitutional reform if there is no chance of success.

Obviously this is contrary to the Democracy 300+'s position that their nominee/candidate must oppose the August 31st resolution and restart the process for double universal suffrage as quickly as possible. This is also contrary to what the masses in the Umbrella Movement want.

In an interview, Leung Kwok-hung said that it is a betrayal of the Umbrella Movement to support John Tsang. "After what we went through with the Umbrella Movement, how can we still talk about accepting the lesser of two evils? Was the whole movement about choosing the lesser evil? If so, we wouldn't even need to go through with the Umbrella Movement."

Faced with these doubts, the interviewees have their own views. Mr. Choi said that the original intention of the Umbrella Movement was to oppose the screening mechanism imposed by the Central Government on the Chief Executive election. This time, he is supporting John Tsang for precisely that reason: "If we sit around and do nothing about the screening, the Central Government can manipulate the election. This is completely contrary to the original intention of the Umbrella Movement."

During the Occupy period, Andy wore a Captain America uniform and fought with his shield. After the Umbrella Movement, he and other fellow travelers stayed on with the Shopping Revolution in Mong Kok. He cannot count how many times he has chanted the slogan "I want genuine universal suffrage". So why would he support John Tsang who supports the August 31st resolution?

Andy's response was astonishing. He thought that John Tsang is actually a fellow traveler of the Occupy people.

"I remember that during the Occupy period, John Tsang said 'to defend Hong Kong' for no apparent reason.' Actually this sentence was intended to tell us that he is supporting us." Andy was deeply encouraged and became convinced that John Tsang would not blindly follow the orders of the Central Government. To this date, he still believes that, if elected, John Tsang will oppose the August 31st resolution.

"Maybe deep down in his heart, he wants to overturn the August 31st resolution. However, he can say so directly."

But in reviewing the record, John Tsang did not appear to have said "to defend Hong Kong" during the Occupy period. On October 5, 2014, he published a blog post titled "Bless Hong Kong." He wrote that Hong Kong society has continued to run efficiently during the Occupy movement because the city management system was strong. He warned that when the city wall fails, the price would be unacceptable to every one of us.

On October 12, he wrote to the demonstrators: "It is time to leave the streets and let society restore normal functioning and let citizens return to their normal lives. If the matter continues, the city wall that we have built up over so many years may not be able to withstand the assault. A democratic system could have fortified our city walls. But if we seek democracy by first destroying the wall, the gains may be less than the losses in the end."

Gordon Poon also recalled what John Tsang said during the Occupy period:

Near the end of the speech, John Tsang said the Occupy crowd is gradually dissipating and the government is actively communicating with the student organizations. "This city has almost return to normalcy. Marketing trading activities have not been impeded." He said that some people were injured but there were no major injuries because both the government and the demonstrators acted in a restrained way: "This truly shows that our city has manners and consideration. We hope that these qualities will persist." John Tsang is the senior Hong Kong government official who has given the most positive assessment of the Occupy movement so far.

October 9, 2014, Apple Daily.

"He said that New York demonstrators are also polite ... he feels that it would be bad for harmony if there is one-sided condemnation of the Occupy folks. Even if one does not agree with the Occupy movement, one must say that they did certain things right." This was how Gordon Poon assessed John Tsang's meaning. "As a senior government official, it was hard to say those words. But a person must speak according to his conscience." Poon believes that Tsang has a conscience.

But didn't John Tsang say that the restart of the constitutional reform process must be based upon the August 31st resolution? Poon said that if he were John Tsang, he would say the same. "Hey, what do you want him to say? Must he promise to vindicate June 4th and overturn the August 31st framework before you are satisfied? ... Do you want him to be elected?" Poon said that Tsang could not have made such verbal promises if he wants to gain the trust of the Central Government. Poon believes that even if Tsang does not make those promises, "there is a chance that he will do what we want" after he gets elected.

Poon insisted that he is not trying to defend and protect John Tsang. "I am not helping him. You can say that I am helping myself, okay?"

In the Principles Camp, Chu Hoi Dick and Nathan Law have advocated nominating a pan-democrat such as Leung Kwok-hung. Mr. Choi was opposed: "Why do we need Long Hair to show that this election is ridiculous? Don't the pan-democrats  already know that this small-circle election is ridiculous?" He said that the pan-democratic candidate will only split up the Democracy 300+ base and reduce their power to fight the Central Government.

"Each time that the pan-democrats seize power, they manage to become divided. It happens every single time." Mr. Choi sighed.

Andy said that the pan-democrats should give all their votes to John Tsang. "Democracy 300+ should be the kingmakers." He said that if the pan-democrats don't support John Tsang, they will receive payback in the future elections. "If you let someone who is going to continue the 689 route become Chief Executive, your Democracy 300+ will be the sinners in history."

Poon does not understand why the pan-democratic leaders are still talking about principles when public opinion is clear.

"If you don't support anyone that the people support, then you are overriding the people. How can you override the power of the people, the voices of the people?" He decried those people as the "High Moral Ground Grand Alliance." "Who do you think you are? How can you trample on the heads of the people?"

On February 1, Chu Hoi Dick said that many of the supporters of John Tsang are motivated by negative emotions. "The current public opinion is false, it is an illusion, it is emotional ... In a true democracy, we must have the power."

Gordon Poon continued to criticize the pan-democratic opinion leaders: "You are not saviors. You should not think that you can lead people. You are not educating people; you should be educated by the people." He said that such is the essence of democracy. "The masses know who is capable and who is the best under the present circumstances. Who do you think you are to question the masses?"

His logic is very direct: Mainstream public opinion is leaning towards John Tsang. Whether the reason behind is "The lesser of two evils" or "Mr. Pringle is so cute", Democracy 300+ must obey the wishes of the people.

Ironically, CY Leung had higher public opinion figures than Henry Tang during the last Chief Executive election. Poon admitted that such is democracy: "You cannot possibly believe that democracy is the perfect machine that will elect the perfect person each time. The people can be deceived some of the time, but not all of the time."

He deeply believes in John Tsang. "Between returning to Hong Kong in 1982 and today, has he ever been someone like CY? You think about this yourself. If he were, he would have been so a long time ago." He countered: "Of course, he is not a Yellow Ribbon. But he is true to his belief. What bias do you hold that you won't believe him?"

Chu Hoi Dick and Leung Kwok-hung both pointed out that if a moderate pro-establishment candidate such as John Tsang wins with high public opinion support, then he will have the authorization of the people of Hong Kong to kneel down to the Central Government and start an August 31st-based constitutional reform. When that time goes, there will be no room to resist and tyranny will be unstoppable. Gordon Poon asked in return: "So is the alternative to let the worst possible person to become Chief Executive so that we can resist? Do you think that your resistance will be easier if Carrie Lam takes over?"

"Do we have to die first for the sake of an enduring democracy movement? Do we have to get stabbed a few times first?"

Gordon Poon said that the only way to persuade the pan-democratic leaders is through Benny Tai's Chief Executive Election Civil Referendum. He expects that John Tsang will receive many more votes than Woo Kwok-hing, Leung Kwok-hung or other candidates. Afterwards, the pan-democratic electors can no longer ignore this force.

"Let us have a referendum and see whether we or those on high moral grounds are right?" Gordon Poon is certain of victory.

Internet comments:

- It does not matter how many times that you tell them, these people just don't get it -- the Chief Executive has limited influence on the constitutional reform process.

Under Basic Law Article 159,

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress. 

 The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region. 

 Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views. 

 No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong. 

If a candidate promises you that he will do it, he is lying unless he has already obtained the prior consent of the other parties.

- What, if anything, does John Tsang have to say about the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee? Here is the relevant section of John Tsang's policy platform:

23. To realize the goal of electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, the HKSAR Government proposed in 2015, according to the relevant decision of the National People's Congress, to amend the method to elect the Chief Executive. The bill failed to secure the votes of two-thirds of the Legislative Council Members; as a result neither the election of Chief Executive in 2017 nor of the following election of Legislative Council Members could be conducted by universal suffrage.

What is this? Lord Voldemort? He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named? And what, if anything, will John Tsang do with it?

- John Tsang's policy platform said as good as nothing about what he will do on the constitutional reform process. Actually, he said even less than his buddy Donald Tsang did in 2012. (News.gov.hk) Back then, the Donald said: "It is time for Hong Kong to lift the anchor and start sailing towards universal suffrage." John Tsang might as well as ask everybody to join hands and pray to the Lord for guidance. This is completely consistent with his "Do Nothing" philosophy of governance.

As for the time bomb known as Article 23, John Tsang says that he will hold consultations first before coming up with a "white bill." This is brilliant strategy. I believe that by the end of his first five-year term, consultations will not even begin yet. And by the end of his second five-year term, China will have collapsed and Article 23 will be irrelevant. By "Doing Nothing" as he is wont to do, Mr. Pringle will achieve our goals.

- (Bastille Post) John Tsang told the press that there has to be communication on constitutional reform. Once a consensus has been reached in Hong Kong, he will inform the Central Government accordingly so that they can make a better judgment. He admitted that the August 31st resolution is a key ingredient which cannot be avoided.

Well, does he really think that he can achieve consensus so easily? And what is consensus anyway? In 2015, the government's proposal was supported by the majority of the population according to the public opinion polls, but the pan-democrats vetoed it anyway because only they know what is best for the people. In the end, he is not going to get that consensus either and he will just blame everybody else for being inflexible and unyielding.

It is the same with Basic Law Article 23. John Tsang says that he will do the easiest pieces first. But he won't identify which pieces are easy and which pieces are hard. So is it all bluster with no substance too?

John Tsang knows that he is not the Central Government's "cup of tea." His biggest problem besides getting the votes is to gain the trust of the Central Government. After being told many times by the Central Government not to run, he went ahead anyway. He must be very concerned that the Central Government won't appoint him even if he wins the election. Therefore, Tsang has to reduce the Central Government's suspicions about him. This means that at the very least he has to talk up a good show on Basic Law Article 23 and constitutional reform for double universal suffrage.

- Basic Law Article 23

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies. 

No part is easy, because it affects the interests of certain parties:

Treason/secession: Hong Kong National Party, Demosisto, Youngspiration, Hong Kong Indigenous, Civic Passion, Chu Hoi Dick, Lau Siu-lai

Sedition: Occupy Central/Umbrella Revolution/Fishball Revolution

Subversion against the Central People's Government: League of Social Democrats, Democratic Party, Labour Party, Civil Human Rights Front, Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China

Theft of state secrets: Mirror Books, Causeway Bay Books, Epoch Times, NDTV, etc.

Foreign political organizations or bodies conducting political activities in Hong Kong: National Endowment for Democracy, International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute, hundreds of NGO's ...

- (HKG Pao) Several days later, John Tsang said on Commercial Radio that he does not have much confidence in achieving Article 23 legislation by 2020, because it takes time for him to find an expert who has a legal background and is trusted by the people to explore how to satisfy the requirements of Article 23 as well as protect the rights of the people of Hong Kong. However, John Tsang re-iterated that the August 31st framework cannot be avoided for constitutional reform.

- Cartoon

Panel 1: Election: "I hope that Article 23 legislation and constitutional reform can be completed before 2020." ("I'll discuss it ... I'll think about it ...")
Panel 2: Meeting: "I want to enact Article 23. Let's discuss ..."
Panel 3: Two years later: "Re-start constitutional reform. Let me think about it first ..."
Panel 4: Five years: "Hey, hey. I have discussed it and I have thought about it."

- (Bastille Post) Democracy 300+ has 325 votes in the 1,194-person Election Committee. At the nomination stage, the minimum threshold is 150 votes. They seemed to have narrowed their potential choices down to three candidates: John Tsang, Woo Kwok Hing and Leung Kwok-hung. 325 votes divided by three equally means that none of the three candidates will be nominated by Democracy 300+ alone. But if they coordinate well enough, they can get two of the candidates in while abandoning the third.

Of the three candidates, Leung Kwok-hung is the purest in terms of ideology. He wants to get rid of the August 31st framework for constitutional reform and he will not introduce Article 23 legislation. These are the basic tenets of Occupy Central/Umbrella Revolution. He has commitment from people such as Nathan Law, Chu Hoi Dick, Lau Siu-lai, etc. This means that the pressure is on the other two candidates.

Previously, John Tsang had said that the August 31st framework which came from the National People's Congress Standing Committee must be the basis for any further discussion of constitutional reform. He also gave a timetable for Article 23 legislation by 2020. This was unsatisfactory to the more idealistic persons in Democracy 300+. Yesterday on radio, John Tsang said that he will have no assumptions for constitutional reform. "No assumptions; broad consultation; forge consensus and present to the Central Government, which will make a precise judgment." By saying no assumptions, he is saying that he has just abandoned the August 31st framework as the basis. John Tsang also said that he does not have confidence in finishing the groundwork for Article 23 legislation by 2020, by which time a new Legislative Council will be elected.

While politicians sway according to the direction of the wind, it is still astonishing to see how quickly John Tsang's switches his position. The pan-democrats are looking for someone who can fight the Central Government, but if John Tsang bends so easily to their pressure today, he can just as easily bend to the pressure from the Central Government after he is elected. Can you trust him?

- John Tsang looks like a kind and gentle man. I feel in my heart that we can trust him.

- The road to perdition is paved with good intentions.

- Avery Ng (president of League of Social Democrats) Facebook

After Article 23 becomes law, the entire League of Social Democrats can hold their meetings at the cold and windy Stanley Prison. Leung "Long Hair" Kwok-hung can play soccer every day, and I can work out in the gym to bulk up.

- If the Pragmatic Camp wins unopposed, Democracy 300+ will cast all their votes for John Tsang, and then Article 23 and the August 31st-based Chief Executive election will become reality. Are the Principles Camp going to sit and watch passively to see this happen? No way!

Here is the Ming Pao story: "Leung Kwok-hung will announce tomorrow that he will campaign to become Chief Executive." At the nomination phase, Leung Kwok-hung will draw away a number of the Democracy 300+ electors, particularly those diehards who are adamantly opposed to any Article 23 legislation and the August 31st resolution (with no civil nomination). During the preliminary rounds, Leung Kwok-hung will continue to keep those votes until he is eliminated. In the final round between the last two candidates, the Principles Camp will cast blank votes.

How can John Tsang cut a deal with the Principles Camp? He has to promise no Article 23 legislation and no August 31st resolution. But if he goes public with those promises, he won't get appointed by the Central Government.

- During the nomination phase, the electors have to make public their choices. If any Democracy 300+ member nominates John Tsang, he will be opposed by the localist radicals in future district council/legislative council elections as payback. So that decision must be carefully weighed.

- John Tsang has no fear of beating Leung Kwok-hung, because he knows that the people of Hong Kong cannot possibly want this man as their leader:

- Look7s Facebook

In 2003, mainstream society was resolutely opposed to Article 23 in any form of packaging. Fourteen years later in 2017, John Tsang made mainstream society feel that Article 23 is acceptable. The so-called democrats even learned appeasement, with the fantasy that "Since Article 23 is bound to happen sooner or later, at least we can strike a better deal with Mr. Pringle." How much retrogression has the people of Hong Kong undergone over these years?

- Gordon Poon said: "I feel that the Central Government does not think that John Tsang will be sufficiently under control. Therefore we must support a person who has the chance to make them a little bit unhappy." Well, this is so much in line with the spirit of Occupy Central. If you occupy Central, you are riling the people of Hong Kong. The Central Government is about 2,000 kilometers away in Beijing and they don't give a rat's ass about the trouble with getting around in downtown Hong Kong. In like manner, if John Tsang turned out to be useless because neither the pro-democracy camp nor the pro-establishment camp nor the Central Government will support him on anything, this is what you bring upon yourselves. The Central Government will only think that this is a good lesson for you to learn to vote responsibly in the future.

- Gordon Poon said: "If Lee Bo were arrested, John Tsang would tell the relevant officials 'Hey, this is a Hong Kong citizen. What happened to him?' It will be embarrassing for the the Central Government." If the Central Government won't tell you about what happened, then they won't tell you. What can John Tsang do? Can he use his high popularity to mobilize 500,000 people and lead them to march to the China Liaison Office to demand a response within 24 hours?

- It took 35 days before the Central Government accepted the resignation of John Tsang, compared to the 4 days for Carrie Lam. Can't you read the writing on the wall? If it took two weeks for the Central Government to answer their favorite son CY Leung about the whereabouts of Lee Bo, how many days will they take to answer John Tsang? 200 days?

- Why is the Central Government slighting John Tsang? To show who is BOSS.

- Well, the pro-independence clique always think that Hong Kong holds the cards because China needs Hong Kong whereas Hong Kong does not need China at all. Does ex-Financial Secretary John Tsang believe that? Is there anything that Hong Kong can slight China with that doesn't hurt itself more?

- So what is the big deal with voting for an odious choice for strategic reasons? It is not as if Hongkongers haven't done it before?

2016 Legislative Council election results for District Council (second) Functional Constituency):

801: James To Kun-sun, 243,930 votes
802: Starry Lee Wai-king, 304,222 votes
803: Kwong Chun-yu, 491,667 votes
804: Kalvin Ho Kai-ming, 17,174 votes
805: Sumly Chan Yuen-sum, 28,311 votes
806: Wong Kwok-hing, 233,236 votes
807: Kwan Wing-yip, 23,631 votes
808: Leung Yiu-chung, 303,457 votes
809: Holden Chow Ho-ding, 303,457 votes

What percent of the 491,667 votes for Kwong Chun-yu were holding their noses when they cast their ballots? Did the original supporters of the surrender monkeys Kalvin Ho, Sumly Chan and Kwan Wing-yip actually think Kwong Chun-yu was the better person?

- In the United States, they don't want to vote for the bitch Hillary Clinton and the only viable alternative was Donald Trump. So they don't have Hillary Clinton to kick around. But are they happy with their lot now?

- Of course, people don't remember things like this: (MarketWatch.com) March 3, 2013.

Last week, Hong Kong’s Financial Secretary John Tsang created a storm in a coffee cup as he took to the airwaves after the territory’s budget release. While a property bubble once again helped push government coffers into surplus, much of the population feels squeezed by high inflation and unaffordable property prices. To show he understood peoples’ concerns, Tsang said he was one of them — the middle class. He supported this claim by saying the middle class are those who drink coffee and like French films. But given that Tsang earns a basic monthly salary of 302,205 Hong Kong dollars (about US$39,000) and lives in a luxury government residence, the reaction ranged from anger to ridicule.

- (VJ Media) February 4, 2017.

On Facebook, Mr. Pringle wrote: "I am not just coming out on my own to announce my candidacy. I want to issue an invitation to all 7.35 million Hong Kong citizens to work together to make Hong Kong better. Your support will be greatest motivator for my election and the effective governance afterwards." This was worse than listening to obscene curses.

I don't know if Mr. Pringle is asleep or not. There are 7.35 million people in Hong Kong, but only 1200 have voting rights. Hong Kong doesn't even have civil nomination. So without mentioning universal suffrage with civil nomination or having a policy platform, he just pointed to his own nose and wanted people to hand money over to him. Carrie Lam gave $500 to a beggar, and John Tsang wants to become a beggar.

John Tsang has a lot of money of his own. However, he wants to give the people of Hong Kong a chance to express their opinions. Therefore he is willing to take their money in order to show their support of him. In summary, he wanted more money -- he knew that the people of Hong Kong don't have a vote, but he organizes a crowdfunding campaign to take their money anyway.

I thought that the reputedly very smart Hongkongers would never fall for this. I was wrong because a horde of money-giving Hong Kong pigs rushed out. Everybody knows that the outcome of this small-circle election will make no fucking difference, because what can the Chief Executive do under the thumb of the Chinese Communists!? Mr. Pringle has already stated that he can't do a thing under the August 31st resolution. Do these Hong Kong pigs think that things would be different after they give their money? Do you think the Chinese Communists care one way or the other?

When they were fighting for genuine universal suffrage, they didn't seem to be so united. But when it comes to forking over their money, they are so united. Everybody knows that John Tsang is the lesser evil, so why didn't they accept "pocketing" the August 31st resolution at the time?

I went over to read the comments at Mr. Pringle's Facebook. You ought to read them. But I remind you not to roll your eyes too much. Normal people won't understand why these Hong Kong pigs fork over their money so readily.

Finally, I want to say that it is not wrong to donate. The important point is whether this is meaningful or not. Mr. Pringle runs crowdfunding. We are giving money away to a rich person (who earned $302,205 per month as Financial Secretary). What is the fucking return on investment? Are we better off donating to Brother Ming to give away free lunchboxes in Sham Shui Po? Donating to the non-paid volunteer actors in the made-in-Hong-Kong movie <Weeds on Fire>?  Donating to the athletes of Hong Kong to promote sports? Donating to the firefighting heroes who died in the Ngau Tau Kok fire?

- Local Press headlines


John Tsang: Hong Kong cannot alter the August 31st resolution as it pleases


John Tsang: Article 23 is the premise and condition for not implementing Chinese National Security Laws in Hong Kong

- am730

CY Leung welcomes John Tsang on the clear articulation of his position with respect to Article 23 legislation.

- Look at that smirk of contempt on his face ...

- (The Stand News) January 7, 2017. In 2003, the headline theme for the July 1st march was to oppose the anti-subversion Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23. For 14 years, "opposition to Article 23 legislation" was the consensus position of the pro-democracy camp. But we now have this 2017 election. Everybody knows that any candidate who opposes Article 23 legislation cannot possibly win. Out of the four declared candidates, it looks like John Tsang and Carrie Lam have the better chance. Of the two, John Tsang is the "lesser evil" whose Article 23 legislation may just be more acceptable. So the pro-democracy camp is forced to come out to say "some form of Article 23 is acceptable."

So how do you walk back on the headline theme in 2003? Well, you revise history! "Back then all we were fighting for was a white paper consultation as opposed to a blue paper vote." "John Tsang will be able to find a way to amend the bill such that the majority of Hongkongers will accept it." "The same law can be enforced differently by different law enforcers." "A piece of legislation should not be demonized or otherwise labeled by the media." "I want an Article 23 that fits the situation in Hong Kong." "Hongkongers should not treat Article 23 as the Devil's seed not to be mentioned under any circumstance." "Article 23 is not the Great Flood or a Vicious Monster."

So now, when all four candidates say that Article 23 must be legislated/enacted, the debate has moved on to whether John Tsang's version will be more acceptable than Carrie Lam's. From the moment that John Tsang announced this candidacy, Article 23 has become a completely different animal in the minds of the people of Hong Kong. This will be the new reality regardless of who becomes the Chief Executive eventually.

- Chiu the Dragon Facebook

People keep saying that "XX creates social rifts." After listening to this for a while, the Hong Kong pigs believe that YY won't create social rifts. Therefore YY will be a good Chief Executive. They are completely ignoring the fact that XX and YY are the same on all those policies which create the social rifts.

That is to say, if you think that the guy on stage is evil, does that mean that all the other people off stage at this moment are good?

- (Apple Daily) February 6, 2017. [John Tsang's policy platform] Housing policy follows 689? Continue with One Belt One Road

- The most interesting part about the Apple Daily news report is the use of the question mark in the title.

Once upon a time, Next Media boss Jimmy Lai hates Chief Executive CY Leung. So anything that Leung does was evil. When Leung wanted to develop Eastern Lantau Island and Northeastern New Territories, his publications denounced those plans. They said that CY Leung wants to steal land from the people of Hong Kong to turn Hong Kong into a suburb of Shenzhen to house wealthy mainlanders. And when Leung wanted to do One Belt One Road, his publications said that Leung was shining Xi Jinping's shoes by invoking One Belt One Road in his governance report.

Today, New Media boss Jimmy Lai has decided that John Tsang is the man to be Chief Executive. So anything that Tsang wants to do is good. Today, Tsang said that he wants to develop Eastern Lantau Island and Northeastern New Territories. Tsang also said that he wants to push ahead with One Belt One Road. So these must all be good.

However, even the editor at Apple Daily is embarrassed at this total reversal of positions. CY Leung cannot do these things but John Tsang can. That is why the question mark was inserted. But is John Tsang doing this to take revenge against Next Media on behalf of his ex-boss CY Leung?

- (Bastille Post) February 6, 2017.

First, we had CY 1.0. When Carrie Lam declared her candidacy, she was tagged CY 2.0. After John Tsang unveiled his policy platform, he is tagged CY 3.0.

CY Leung wanted to develop Northeast New Territories. The pan-democrats said no, because they did not want a Shenzhen suburb for wealthy mainlanders. John Tsang wants to develop Northeast New Territories.

CY Leung wanted to create housing space with landfills on Eastern Lantau Island. The pan-democrats said not, because they wanted to protect the environment. John Tsang wants to create housing space with landfills on Eastern Lantau Island.

CY Leung planned to have 60% of new housing over the next ten years be public housing. John Tsang wants public housing for 60% of citizens.

CY Leung inherited the TSA test in schools. The pan-democrats wanted to get rid of it altogether because school children are committing suicide due to the pressure of tests and homework. John Tsang will get rid of it. In truth, the Education Bureau does not want schools to drill students, but the teachers and parents want the drills.

CY Leung rejected the pan-democrats' demands to have universal retirement protection, standard working hours, hedging the MPF, stopping import of outside laborers, etc. John Tsang does not want any of these things either.

CY Leung wanted to restructure the government bureaus. The pan-democrats did everything possible to stop this. John Tsang now wants to restructure the government bureaus in virtually the same way (except for the minor difference of putting sports under the Cultural Bureau).

- John Tsang's campaign slogan:

(Bastille Post) January 6, 2017.

Well, well, well. We're going to have a problem with "Proactive Enablement" in Chinese.

「主動賦能」is indeed "Proactive Enablement".

When pronounced as 「主動負能」it becomes "Proactive Negative Energy".

When pronounced as 「主動負L」it becomes "Proactive Fucking Negative".

- (SCMP) John Tsang’s empty words on political reform. By Alex Lo. February 7, 2017.

John Tsang Chun-wah has managed to steal a march over his arch-rival in the chief executive race by coming up with a policy platform first.

What immediately catches the eye is how many pan-democratic pet causes he has promised to pursue. The man is really going after the pan-dems’ votes on the Election Committee.

He has promised to restart the political reform process for universal suffrage; review the time-honoured automatic appointment of the chief executive as chancellor of all the public universities; and enhance “procedural justice”, rule-based government operations and transparency.

The last item is presumably a dig at rival Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who has drawn much flak for authorising the construction of a local version of Beijing’s Palace Museum at the West Kowloon arts hub without prior consultation or tendering.

But the main attraction is no doubt the promise to revive the political reform process. That really sets him apart from the Beijing-friendly crowd. It’s an article of faith among many in the business elite and the pro-establishment camp that there is no point in reviving the failed reform exercise.

Indeed, they have a very good argument. The central government will not compromise on the so-called 8-31 framework – the blueprint laid down by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee for electoral reform in Hong Kong on August 31, 2014 – that imposes restrictions on the number and qualifications of chief executive candidates, and on the methods of their selection. And there is no way the pan-democrats would ever accept the 8-31 framework. So any attempt to reintroduce reform would not just be a waste of time, but would lead to more acrimony and recrimination. Who wants to risk another Occupy Central?

My guess is that Lam also accepts this line of reasoning. But Tsang is no fool. The only way he could win the chief executive race is to get on board with the pan-dems on the Election Committee by promising some kind of reform, or rather talk of reform.

It is prefaced with qualifications on his policy platform: “Find common grounds, build consensus, truly reflect views to the central government, create a favourable environment for political reform.” But what if there is no common ground or consensus to reflect back to Beijing? What if the city’s political views are even more divided than before? Call me cynical, but the most that Tsang as chief executive would do is to launch a public consultation on political reform. And that would be the end of the matter.

- (Wen Wei Po) Who is the Genuine John Tsang? February 10, 2017.

Several weeks ago, John Tsang announced his candidacy and said that he wanted to allow the people to "recuperate/recover/rehabilitate" from the internal strife. This led to some debate. On one hand, people are sick of the endless bickering and fighting. On the other hand, Hong Kong faces internal and external challenges and cannot afford to sit still. John Tsang did not explain what the "internal strife" is, or how it came about, or how it can be stopped.

Earlier this week, John Tsang presented his policy platform. People were looking forward to see how he plans for Hong Kong to "recuperate/recover/rehabilitate." Instead, people were surprised to see the policies include restructuring the government, introducing a progressive tax rate with a negative tax for low-income people, etc. These issues about public administration, fiscal policies and welfare systems are surely controversial, so this is no way to "recuperate/recover/rehabilitate."

John Tsang also brought up Article 23 legislation and restarting the constitutional reform process. There is no way to "recuperate/recover/rehabilitate." So which one is the real John Tsang? The one who wants to "recuperate/recover/rehabilitate" or the one who wants to take on any number of new actions?

Of the election issues, the citizens are most concerned with the housing problems. Everybody knows that the housing problems (high prices/rents, access, etc) are due to shortage of housing supply. This did not happen in one or two days. During the ten years of John Tsang's tenure as Financial Secretary, he underestimated government revenues and failed to make long-range investments. He also failed to find more land for housing development while he headed the Steering Committee on Housing (Land) Supply. Now candidate John Tsang says that his goal is to have 60% of the people living in public housing. When asked how, he said that this was a long-range goal which will not be realized during his term. So what does that mean? He doesn't explain.

On the matter of constitutional reform, the pan-democrats were delighted to see that his policy platform did not mention the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee. Does this means that he plans to bypass it? When pressed hard by the media, John Tsang said that the August 31st resolution must be the basis for any proposal. How can the citizens or the Central Government trust someone who is so shifty on the central issue here?

Theoretically, one should get a clear picture of a candidate once one reads through the policy platform. Once you understand the concepts and approaches, you can decide whether to support the candidate or not. But one cannot figure out who John Tsang is from his policy platform ...  Those people who have replaced their "I want genuine universal suffrage" slogan with "I want John Tsang" should really think about: Which is the genuine John Tsang?

- (Bastille Post) February 23, 2017.

John Tsang resigned in order to run for Chief Executive, so it became the job of the new Financial Secretary Paul Chan to present the government budget for 2017/2018. Last year, the pan-democrats gave John Tsang a pass in order to facilitate his entry into the Chief Executive election. So the government budget even received some support from the pan-democrats; even those who opposed the budget did not show up. So last year was the most popular of the eight budgets prepared by John Tsang.

This year, Paul Chan's budget was accepted by the public because it was more or less the same as last year's. The pan-democrats held back their criticism of Paul Chan because it would affect John Tsang. But legislator Kwok Ka-ki (Civic Party) must not have received the message because he said denounced Paul Chan for being John Tsang 2.0.

Hey, this is kind of embarrassing. On one hand, the pan-democrats are not happy with John Tsang 2.0. On the other hand, the pan-democrats are actively trying to elect John Tsang 1.0 as Chief Executive. Not even the greatest debater in the world can argue from both sides of the mouth.

- Paul Chan responded to Kwok Ka-ki that he is not John Tsang 2.0, because Chan does not have a beard.

- (EJ Insight) March 22, 2017.

Among other issues, Tsang cannot absolve himself of the blame for Hong Kong’s ever worsening shortage in housing. As chairman of the Steering Committee on Land Supply, Tsang had a responsibility to coordinate land supply and make adjustments in response to changes in demand. The Development Bureau, the linchpin of government’s hunt for land, was within his realm of duty as well. But, as some media reports pointed out, Tsang didn’t convene a single meeting of the land supply committee during an eight-month period last year.

There has been talk of differences between Tsang and Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying over land issues, but people are not really interested in excuses or hearing top officials passing the buck to each other. 

As chairman of the land supply steering committee, Tsang showed little courage as he failed to stand up to rural chieftains and vested interests and rezone vast, derelict brownfield sites for housing, nor did he show any resolve to prod developers and urge them not to horde land plots.

During city debates on resolving the housing stalemate, Tsang was missing in action most of the time. He seldom went beyond his comfort zone or visited those who dwell in subdivided flats or even cage homes to see for himself the ordeal of Hongkongers on the bottom rung of the housing ladder.

Tsang’s manifesto does contain a bold suggestion to provide public housing to 60 percent of the entire population, but there are no details on how he intends to achieve the goal, which now looks more like an electioneering stunt.

The government coffers kept swelling throughout Tsang’s tenure, but the former finance chief, overly punctilious with the numbers, sat idly by and watched Hong Kong’s poverty and housing woes become almost intractable. This is something that the CE hopeful’s supporters need to bear in mind.

Why does this story have no legs anymore? What is nothing more being said? Well, an intelligent discussion requires that you know the basic facts. Here are some of the different versions of what happened. Which is true? Well, the only thing for certain is that they can't all be true. When you have a plethora of contradictory facts and fictions, what can you really say? We will just have to wait and see.

(Mingjing News) January 29, 2017.

Yesterday Mingjing News reported that a certain Chinese department has a multi-billionaire tycoon under control. On Lunar New Year's Eve, several dozen public security bureau and national security bureau officers arrested the man, who was said to manage the assets of the families of top leaders to the tune of thousands of billions RMB.

Mingjing News did not name the tycoon. But they said that the tycoon was arrested and taken away in Hong Kong. At the time, he had eight bodyguards with him.

(Boxun) January 30, 2017.

An informed Beijing source told us that the arrest of Xiao Jianhua was made by the Hong Kong Police. Another informed source told us that the arrest was not made by the Hong Kong Police and the arrestee was taken to China by irregular channel.

(Boxun) January 31, 2017.

According to a knowledgeable person, Xiao Jianhua was taken back to mainland China on Lunar New Year's Eve and detained presently at a secret location in Beijing. The arresting team had done their preparation well, using the Lunar New Year's Eve period when the media don't pay too much attention and using a legal method to cross the border (albeit Xiao Jianhua was held under duress). But hey did not expect Xiao's wife would contact the Hong Kong Police on January 28 and thus drew the attention of the Hong Kong authorities.

The arresting team persuaded Mrs. Xiao to withdraw her police report on January 29 and said that her husband was safe and sound. But in the evening, the overseas Mingjing News reported the incident without naming the individual.

The arresting team did not anticipate that after Boxun named Xiao Jianhua and drew media attention, the Hong Kong Police would disclose the exact details of Mrs. Xiao filing a report, canceling the report and how Mr. Xiao was "taken across the border" by car.

(Mingjing News) January 30, 2017.

Tomorrow Stock Holdings Limited Company
Concerning the recent attention to me, I made this special statement: I, Xiao Jianhua, am presently undergoing medical treatment overseas. At present everything is fine! Business is as usual at the Tomorrow Group! I thank everybody for their concern!
Xiao Jianhua
January 30, 2017.

(Boxun) January 31, 2017.

Xiao Jianhua issued a statement through his company Tomorrow Group. This statement was published as an advertisement in Ming Pao:

Solemn Statement

1. I thank everybody for your concern. I am presently undergoing medical treatment overseas. After the treatment is complete, I will meet with the media soon.
2. I believe that the Chinese government is a civilized government with rule of law. Please do not misunderstand! There is no issue of being being kidnapped back to the mainland.
3. I am a patriotic overseas Chinese. I love the Party and the Country. I have never taken part in anything that hurts the national interests and the image of the government. I have never supported any opposition forces or groups.
4. I am a Canadian citizen as well as a permanent resident of Hong Kong. I am protected by the Canadian Consulate as well as Hong Kong law. I also hold a diplomatic passport with diplomatic protection. Therefore you should not have to worry!
Xiao Jianhua
January 31, 2017.

(SCMP) January 31, 2017.

A government source with knowledge of the investigation said Xiao, 46, left the Four Seasons Hotel on Friday morning, accompanied by an unidentified number of people. The source said the people with Xiao were not triad members as reported. The hotel had already handed over sur­veillance camera footage to the police, the source added.

Another source said Xiao left Hong Kong for Shenzhen at about 3pm on Friday. Police officers examined CCTV footage and did not find any scuffles in the hotel involving Xiao or his two female bodyguards.

The Post has also learned that Xiao is not a holder of a Hong Kong permanent ID card or an SAR passport.

The Canadian embassy in ­Beijing declined to confirm whether Xiao was a Canadian citizen, or whether it had received any recent requests for consular assistance from any ­Canadian ­citizens in China.

Hong Kong police said they ­received a “request for police assistance” report on Saturday concerning a mainland citizen in the city.

The police statement did not name the person, but it was issued in response to media queries about Xiao. A relative of the mainland citizen asked on Sunday for the report to be withdrawn because the subject told the family member he was safe, the police statement said.

Police said that based on initial investigations, the subject entered the mainland on Friday via one of Hong Kong’s boundary control points.

A source said Xiao’s wife filed and later withdrew the report to police.

Mingjing News, a New York-based website covering Chinese political rumours, reported over the weekend that an unnamed billionaire “who controlled trillions of yuan in assets” was captured by mainland police and state security agents in Hong Kong on Friday night.

On Monday, Bowen Press, an offshoot of Boxun, another overseas website for Chinese political rumours, reported that Xiao had been taken away for ­opposing the Communist Party’s leadership. But sources conflicted on whether Hong Kong police were involved in the operation, the report said.

(Financial Times) January 31, 2017.

Mr Xiao was abducted from the Four Seasons hotel in central Hong Kong in the early hours of January 27 by a group of Chinese public security agents, according to people briefed on the incident. At a time when he should have been preparing to celebrate Chinese new year with his family, he was instead whisked across the border into mainland China.

(New York Times) January 31, 2017.

A Chinese-born billionaire who has forged financial ties with some of the country's most powerful families was taken by the Chinese police from his apartment at the Four Seasons Hotel in Hong Kong late last week and spirited across the border, a person close to the businessman said on Tuesday.

The billionaire, Xiao Jianhua, who has been missing since Friday, is in police custody in China, where he apparently is safe, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of arrest.

(CNBC) January 31, 2017.

Mr Xiao was accosted in his Hong Kong waterfront apartment at around 1am on Friday, the eve of Chinese new year, by "five or six plain-clothed Chinese public security agents", who then took him and two of his bodyguards to the mainland, said one person familiar with the investigation.

The Four Seasons has provided Hong Kong police with CCTV footage of Mr Xiao, who is normally followed everywhere by a group of female bodyguards, being led away by the Chinese security agents, the person said. It is unclear what happened inside the room where Mr Xiao was living but there was no scuffle in the hallway or elevator and he appeared to go with them willingly once they all left his room, the person added.

(Apple Daily with video) February 1, 2017.

An authoritative source told Hong Kong's Apple Daily that China did not send any national security agents to Hong Kong because of the sensitivity over the Causeway Bay Books case. This time, they went through Hong Kong triads to take Xiao Jianhua and his wife Zhou Hongwen away.

According to information, the triad gangsters took Xiao and Zhou away on Lunar New Year's Eve and left through the Huanggang port of entry for China. After reaching Shenzhen, Zhou was released and she returned to Hong Kong. Xiao was taken to Beijing/Tianjian for interrogation.

After Zhou Hongwen got to Hong Kong, she filed a police report and contacted the media. Then she received a call from Xiao to tell her not to magnify the case. Zhou canceled the police report and said that her husband has called to say that he is safe and sound.

Financial Times cited an authoritative sources who said that 5 to 6 mainland plainclothes public security bureau agents went to the Four Seasons Hotel at around 1am on Lunar New Year's Eve and took Xiao, Zhou and two female bodyguards to mainland China. The hotel has provided surveillance video to the Hong Kong Police showing Xiao leaving in the company of his female bodyguards and a group of individuals. The process was peaceful.

- (Lam Wing Kee @ Apple Daily) If law enforcement agents came down from China to Hong Kong to make the arrest, it would be a violation of the Basic Law and One Country Two Systems. If mainland China directed triads to break the law, it is another story. This may not be a violation of the Basic Law, but it is just as serious a crime and should be deplored. But when the facts are still unclear in the case of Xiao Jianhua, how can we prove either mainland China enforced the law across the border or directed triads to break the law?

(The Guardian) February 1, 2017.

A billionaire with links to the family of Xi Jinping was reportedly taken from his apartment in the Four Seasons in Hong Kong by Chinese police and taken to the mainland.

Xiao Jianhua, one of China’s richest men, is currently in police custody on the mainland, the Financial Times and New York Times reported.

(SCMP) February 1, 2017.

A Chinese billionaire who disappeared mysteriously from his luxury Hong Kong hotel over the Lunar New Year weekend is now on the mainland and “assisting investigations” into the stock market turmoil of 2015 and the case of a former top spy, several sources have told the South China Morning Post.

A source familiar with Xiao Jianhua’s movements said the founder of Beijing-based Tomorrow Group was “persuaded” to cooperate rather than coerced by mainland agents who visited him at his serviced apartment in the Four Seasons Hotel last Friday. It remains unclear in what capacity the mainland agents came to Hong Kong, or which agencies they represented. 

Xiao’s company took out a full-page advertisement in a Chinese-language newspaper yesterday, reprinting a statement it released a day earlier claiming he was “receiving treatment overseas”. Xiao claimed in the newspaper ad to be a Canadian passport holder, although this has not been confirmed. He has also claimed to have a diplomatic passport. Antigua and Barbuda named him ambassador-at-large in 2015, according to a report on news portal Caribbean360.

A source close to the tycoon said Xiao was currently on the mainland and could communicate directly with his family.

Hong Kong police on Wednesday said reports that it was involved in the operation on Friday were “purely speculative and carried no truth”. The Security Bureau said earlier the Basic Law authorised only local authorities to carry out law enforcement in the city. A ­bureau spokesman said police had contacted mainland authorities for information.

(SCMP) February 1, 2017.

A source close to missing billionaire Xiao Jianhua told the South China Morning Post that the tycoon is currently in mainland China.

The source, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Xiao could communicate only with his family. “His family members can communicate with him. That’s not bad, at least we know he is safe and well.”

(SCMP) February 2, 2017.

Missing billionaire Xiao Jianhua’s decision to hire an all-female bodyguard team is very unusual, say security experts. Xiao, who is understood to have left Hong Kong’s luxury Four Seasons hotel with mainland agents, was seen on video accompanied by two female bodyguards. Previous media reports said he would, at times, have up to eight female bodyguards on each shift.

(Hong Kong Free Press) February 2, 2017.

Initium Media, citing a source familiar with Xiao, reported on Wednesday that Xiao Jianhua's wife, Zhou Hongwen, fled to Japan after withdrawing a request for police assistance on his case on January 29 – just one day after filing the report.

 

According to Initium, the couple had temporarily moved to Japan in 2016 because they felt Hong Kong was no longer safe after the high-profile case of the suspected kidnapping of Lee Bo. They also made Japan the main base for their businesses.

After Xiao and Zhou received “insider information” telling them that “nothing would happen if they returned [to Hong Kong]”, they came back to live at the Four Seasons Hotel, reportedly under the protection of security guards.

Yet Hong Kong police – while not explicitly naming Xiao – have since confirmed that a mainland Chinese citizen entered the mainland through a Hong Kong boundary control point.

Citing CCTV footage, Sing Tao Daily reported that Xiao was taken from his room at the Four Seasons Hotel by six men in plain clothes. He apparently did not make an effort to resist.

On Wednesday, the police issued a statement refuting media allegations that it was involved in the case of suspected abduction. “Such reports were purely speculative and carried no truth,” it read.

(Reuters) February 2, 2017.

The Hong Kong police said in a statement to Reuters that Xiao had entered mainland China through a border checkpoint on Jan. 27 and that they were seeking more information on the case from Chinese authorities.

A police source briefed on the investigation said the case was initially treated as a "kidnapping" following a complaint from someone connected to Xiao, but after a review of CCTV footage at the Four Seasons and at the border checkpoint, police concluded that Xiao had voluntarily left Hong Kong.

(SCMP) February 2, 2017.

Hong Kong police are checking roadside surveillance footage around the city to try to trace the movements of missing mainland billionaire Xiao Jianhua as they investigate his disappearance from the luxury hotel where he was staying on Lunar New Year’s Eve, the Post has learned.

More details of the tycoon’s disappearance emerged on Thursday as a senior government source with knowledge of the case told the Post that the founder of Beijing-based Tomorrow Group left the Four Seasons Hotel in Central “smoothly” with two female bodyguards and six other unidentified people in plain clothes at around 3am last Friday.

The group was picked up by two cars, driven by two men, at the main entrance. It was 3pm when Xiao crossed the border into Shenzhen in a vehicle at Lok Ma Chau.

“Police are investigating where Xiao went and with whom he met during the 12-hour gap,” the source said. “Officers are trying to get as much CCTV footage as possible, from private buildings and the government, so as to join the dots and map out his routes before he left the city.”

The source did not disclose the model of the cars that picked up Xiao and the others at the hotel, or whether Xiao left for Shenzhen in the same vehicle that picked him up.

One woman was left behind at the Four Seasons Hotel, as Xiao checked in with three women but was last seen leaving the building with two, the source said.

(Today) February 3, 2017.

It reads like the plot of a bad thriller — a Chinese billionaire sits with his entourage of female bodyguards in his apartment in the Hong Kong Four Seasons in the early hours of Chinese New Year’s Eve. The women are employed not only to protect him but also to wipe the sweat from his brow and back.

Suddenly, half-a-dozen public security agents from mainland China burst in, overpower the bodyguards, bundle the billionaire out of the hotel and take him across the border to face the wrath of the Communist party.

But this is not the script for a kung fu potboiler. The billionaire is Mr Xiao Jianhua, one of China’s most politically connected and wealthy men, and his abduction from the heart of Hong Kong’s financial district last Friday has shaken the city to its core.

... Either the Hong Kong government and security services were complicit in the snatching of Mr Xiao or they were negligent in allowing it to happen right under their noses. Hong Kong’s status as a global financial centre has now been damaged.

(HK01) February 4, 2017.

An informed source has disclosed more details of the case. On early morning of Lunar New Year's Eve, Xiao Jianhua returned to mainland China in the company of six members of a "powerful department in mainland China." According to information, these individuals had rented a room next to Xiao Jianhua's room in the Four Seasons Hotel for quite some time. They observed that Xiao Jianhua was frequently on the fourth floor with a varying number of bodyguards. So they waited until there were only two bodyguards before they showed up and "invited" him to go to the mainland with them. The hotel security staff was not aware of what was happening.

 

Recently, Xiao Jianhua had increased his security detail to eight bodyguards, including two foreigners. He usually moves around with at least four bodyguards around him. The mainland agents decided that they will not act when there are five or more bodyguards around, because things can get out of control. So they waited until there were only two bodyguards around in the early morning and then showed up. Previously, Financial Times cited a source said that the action took place at around 1pm on Lunar New Year's Eve with five to six plainclothes agent taking part.

(SCMP) February 4, 2017.

There was no evidence so far that suggested mainland law enforcement agents had acted on Hong Kong soil and taken missing mainland billionaire Xiao Jianhua from the city, Hong Kong police chief Stephen Lo Wai-chung said on Saturday.

More than a week has passed since the high-profile tycoon went missing after leaving Hong Kong for Shenzhen. Lo said the force took the case very seriously and was looking at it from all angles, even though Xiao’s wife had withdrawn the missing report to police on the case.

“Up to this moment, we have not seen mainland counterparts exercising their authority in Hong Kong,” Lo said on a radio programme on Saturday morning. “The probe is not over. We will continue to investigate as members of public are concerned about the case.”

The police chief, however, refused to say if any triads were involved.

(Apple Daily) February 4, 2017.

Lo Wai-chung declined to comment on the information about Xiao Jianhua being taken across the border by triads. He said that the police will examine all possible angles.

(Mingjing News) February 4, 2017.

According to an authoritative source, Xiao Jianghua was persuaded by an important friend to return to mainland China to assist in the investigation, with guarantees for the safety of both his own person and wealth. The mainland department did not send anyone directly to Hong Kong to pick him up. Therefore, there was no kidnapping as such. This authoritative source also said that Xiao is suffering from all sorts of ailments and will require extensive treatment in mainland China.

(SCMP) February 4, 2017.

Xiao Jianhua, the Chinese tycoon who vanished from the Four Seasons Hotel in Hong Kong last week and is now believed to be on the mainland assisting several investigations, entered the mainland via normal border control procedures, sources from both the mainland and Hong Kong told the South China Morning Post.

The sources said Xiao, founder of the Tomorrow Group, had been negotiating with mainland authorities about returning to help with investigations including bribery and possible stock market manipulation.

Xiao is allowed to contact his family and is able to direct the business of Tomorrow Group through close associates, the sources said, as the authorities want to contain impact of the case on financial markets. Xiao directly or indirectly controls dozens of financial and insurance companies.

Four visitors from the mainland met Xiao in Hong Kong on January 27 at a prearranged rendezvous, according to the sources, who declined to be identified. He had been friends with two of them for years, and the other two were “negotiators” he did not know, they said.

One source said none of the visitors were mainland law enforcement personnel. After the meeting, Xiao agreed to go the mainland with them, but requested his two female bodyguards accompany him, one source said. The group of seven left the hotel together, sources who have seen the hotel security footage said.

People familiar with the case confirmed that Xiao’s border crossing exit records were in order, making his case different from the Causeway Bay bookstore incident when the booksellers taken to the mainland had no exit record.

(SCMP) February 4, 2017.

More details of the tycoon’s disappearance emerged on Thursday as a senior government source with knowledge of the case told the Post that the founder of Beijing-based Tomorrow Group left the Four Seasons Hotel in Central “smoothly” with two female bodyguards and six other unidentified people in plain clothes at around 3am last Friday.

The group was picked up by two cars, driven by two men, at the main entrance. It was 3pm when Xiao crossed the border into Shenzhen in a vehicle at Lok Ma Chau.

“Police are investigating where Xiao went and with whom he met during the 12-hour gap,” the source said. “Officers are trying to get as much CCTV footage as possible, from private buildings and the government, so as to join the dots and map out his routes before he left the city.”

The source did not disclose the model of the cars that picked up Xiao and the others at the hotel, or whether Xiao left for Shenzhen in the same vehicle that picked him up.

One woman was left behind at the Four Seasons Hotel, as Xiao checked in with three women but was last seen leaving the building with two, the source said. The source declined to say whether the woman staying behind at the hotel was Xiao’s wife.

(The Daily Beast) February 4, 2017.

A Chinese billionaire exited his harborfront serviced apartment, rode the elevator down to the ground floor, walked through the front door of the luxury hotel where he lives, and promptly disappeared.

For those in Hong Kong, and much of the rest of China, that meek description can bring chills. Xiao Jianhua, who lives in the Four Seasons Hotel in Hong Kong, was most recently seen in the building lobby of his glitzy residence on the eve of Chinese New Year, in the last week of January. Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, once a newspaper of high repute that has been relegated to a dressed-up mouthpiece of the Chinese government, cited an anonymous source who claimed Xiao crossed into mainland China.

(HKG Pao) February 4, 2017.

Legislator Claudia Mo (Civic Party) introduced a motion to hold an emergency hearing on the Xiao Jianhua affair next week. She said that the case involves One Country Two Systems and affects the position of Hong Kong as a financial centre, according to foreign media reports. Legislator Jeremy Tam (Civic Party) supported Mo's motion and said that the Hong Kong government must answer directly whether there had been cross-border law enforcement or triad action.

However, legislator Ann Chiang (DAB) said that Xiao Jianhua was found to have exited Hong Kong on his own and took out an newspaper ad the next day. This meant that he was not kidnapped back to the mainland. Xiao's wife has also withdrawn the police report. Chiang said: "I don't understand why Claudia Mo is even more concerned than Xiao's wife?" Legislator Wong Kwok-kin (FTU) said that the case of Xiao Jianhua is still developing with many unclear points. So one should wait until the outline of the case becomes clearer and we have more facts at our disposal before holding a hearing.

The vote was 33 to 26 not to hold the hearing at this time.

(Bastille Post) February 5, 2017.

According to an informed source, mainland "negotiators" came at 1am on the night of Lunar New Year's eve to meet with Xiao Jianhua at the Four Seasons Hotel in the company of his Hong Kong business associates. The "negotiators" wanted Xiao to go back to the mainland to assist in an investigation of corruption and market manipulation.

In the end, Xiao Jianhua agreed to go back to the mainland to assist in that investigation. The key was that all his mainland friends and relatives were arrested at a Lunar New Year's dinner. If Xiao does not go back, these people were be held legally responsible for the case. After due consideration and negotiating the conditions, Xiao agreed.

When the Hong Kong Police reviewed the Four Seasons security videos, they saw seven persons leaving calmly together. There was no sign of Xiao being held under duress. The group included Xiao Jianhua and two female bodyguards. The "negotiators" agreed to visit a relative of Xiao first, before they crossed over the Huanggang Port. If Xiao was being held under duress, then he could have cried for help when the car across over the Huanggang Port. At that location, the Immigration Department checked the ID and photo of each passenger. Xiao had plenty of opportunity to seek help, but he didn't.

(Next Magazine) February 9, 2017.  Issue# 1405, p.11.

According to an informed source, "He used to have just a few women and one or two bodyguards around him. About three or four months ago, he got wind that something is not right. So he went around in five to six vehicles with twenty to thirty big, strong bodyguards. It was an awesome formation." Unfortunately, the many bodyguards can save him from being ambushed, but they cannot stop the national special agents from knocking on the door and taking him "calmly" away by force.

(SCMP) Don’t wail ‘abduction’ next time someone appears to leave Hong Kong against their will. By Mike Rowse. February 9, 2017.

I think we are going to have to call all the media together and agree which words to use when incidents arise of people moving from Hong Kong to the mainland in circumstances that suggest it may not have been entirely their own idea in the first instance.

You see, when I read the word “abduction” it conjures up several exotic possibilities, for example alien abduction, as portrayed in some films and TV series, whereby creatures from another planet take the victim into custody on a space ship for examination; or kidnap of a potential bride as apparently practised at various times in the past when the law and order situation was less satisfactory and courting techniques less sophisticated.

Even when the circumstances are more mundane, the implication I get from the word is of a forceful laying on of hands so that a person is removed entirely against his own will from one place where he was peacefully going about his own business and taken to another place. The victim may be unconscious, or rendered helpless in some way through handcuffs or other bindings. He may well be gagged so as to prevent him calling out for help.

All of which is by way of introduction to the recent spate of cases featured prominently in the local and international media. Let us start with the most recent episode, the strange case of prominent mainland businessman Xiao Jianhua.

According to all accounts, Mr Xiao was sitting peacefully in his suite at the Four Seasons Hotel in the company of a number of female bodyguards when he was visited by a group of men. From their appearance, manner and bearing witnesses deduced that the group was from the mainland. Members apparently pushed their way past the bodyguards and had a spirited discussion with Xiao. Subsequently, Xiao got into a private car, accompanied by two of his bodyguards, and was driven to one of the border crossing points where he passed peacefully through immigration and returned to the mainland.

My question is this: is it fair to say that Xiao was “abducted”? At the risk of being mocked as naive or a stooge of Beijing, I am going to stick my neck out and say I am not so sure. Clearly the conversation in the hotel must have been very persuasive, and may well have included threats and inducements (“bad things will happen to your family, or assets, or both”, “friends only want to talk to you for a few days, then you can come back” etc).

So, under pressure certainly, but by force? What kidnapper allows the target to bring his own bodyguards with him? If he was really there under criminal duress, would Xiao not have mentioned it to the immigration officer on the Hong Kong side?

Inevitably, the Xiao stories also brought to mind the case of the five Causeway Bay booksellers. Three of them were clearly not abducted as they were already in the mainland of their own free will when they were arrested.

The case of Mr Lee Po is more suspicious because he apparently did not pass through immigration channels on either side of the border. Notwithstanding Lee’s own claim later that he had gone voluntarily, I think it is fair to put this one closer to the abduction end of the spectrum. The case of the fifth bookseller, a Swedish national who disappeared from Thailand, seems even more serious.

Why am I making an issue of terminology, perhaps even being a bit pernickety? Simple: I have it on good authority from a reliable source that there have been number of bona fide abductions from Hong Kong, usually in connection with commercial disputes, and often involving corrupt officials on the mainland side.

If we want our police to clamp down on these and protect local citizens, then we need to reserve words like “abduction” for the more serious cases, not just trot it out casually to spice up a more questionable story.

(New York Times) A Video, a Wheelchair, a Suitcase: Mystery of Vanished Tycoon Deepens. By Michael Forsythe and Paul Mozur. February 10, 2017.

In the early hours of Jan. 27, Xiao Jianhua was taken out of the Four Seasons Hotel in Hong Kong in a wheelchair, his head covered by a sheet or a blanket, according to people were who have seen or been briefed on video footage captured by security cameras in the hotel.

Mr. Xiao, 45, who was not known to use a wheelchair, was accompanied by about half a dozen unidentified men who were also pushing a large suitcase on rollers. He is believed to have been transported by boat from Hong Kong, eluding border controls, and is now in police custody in mainland China, according to two people familiar with the investigation into his whereabouts.

On the night he disappeared, the men in plain clothes were recorded by closed-circuit security cameras entering his suite with a wheelchair and the large suitcase, according to one of the people familiar with the footage.

Some time later, the men emerged from the suite with Mr. Xiao in the wheelchair, along with several women and the suitcase. Mr. Xiao was not struggling but seemed fatigued and his head was covered, according to the people familiar with the video. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the news media or feared retaliation by the Chinese government.

The lobby of the Four Seasons apartment tower is separate from the main hotel, with its own front desk and a single door that opens with a key card. Hotel staff members there questioned the men who left with Mr. Xiao, and they were told that the men were part of his security detail and that he was ill and needed medical attention, the people said.

- Hong Kong Police Commissioner Stephen Lo Wai-chung said that the investigation by the Hong Kong Island Major Crimes Unit showed that Xiao Jianhua left Hong Kong for mainland China via a land border crossing. By 'investigation', this means (1) the Hong Kong Immigration Department had an exit record for Xiao Jianhua; (2) the Hong Kong Immigration Department had a surveillance video of Xiao Jianhua crossing the checkpoint. The New York Times said that no such thing occurred as Xiao Jianhua went by boat. Why were the Hong Kong Police and/or Immigration Department lying?

- Here is the most basic article about Xiao Jianhua:

(Next Weekly Issue Number 1243, January 2, 2014)

For years, Xiao Jianhua only had this photo on the Internet:

Next Weekly managed to follow him around and got a bunch more photos.


It is in the middle of November with temperature over 20 degrees centigrade outside, but Xiao Jianhua wore a sweater and a wool cap. When he got in the van, his female assistant wrapped him up in a wool blanket from neck to toe.

Xiao Jianhua paced around the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel, pacing back and forth while speaking on the telephone. His female assistant came up and adjusted his coat like a nanny looking after a child.


Xiao Jianhua usually has three or so young and pretty female bodyguards around him.


In late November our reporter approached Xiao Jianhua to get an interview. Before even getting close, the female bodyguards rushed up to stop the reporter and block the camera. Xiao Jianhua walked away quickly. Xiao's personal secretary later called and suggested an interview by written correspondence. Later the reporter approached him again at the fourth-floor ifc platform and this time Xiao reacted calmly, put his arm on the reporter's shoulder and said, "Let's be good friends."

Xiao Jianhua spoke with a husky voice. He explained that he has a case of laryngitis that has persisted for many years. One of the reasons why Xiao is in Hong Kong is to get medical treatment for this problem. Xiao said that he is not going to do the interview because his throat felt uncomfortable at that moment. Nevertheless he kept talking. "I don't manage what goes on in the company. I am just an advisor for investment. I will read annual reports, I have some general principles. Infrastructure, energy and high technology areas are better." The smiling Xiao insisted on finding another time for the interview. He said repeatedly: "I promise. If I lie to you, let me be a little dog!" But when asked for a method of contact, he smiled and said: "I don't take telephone calls and I don't know how to use a computer." But the reporter said that he is often talking on the telephone. Xiao switched the subject: "You are really cool. Why don't you come and work here? You can help us deal with the deal. Then he said that he has to meet with a client and he ditched the reporter.


Xiao Jianhua (in red wool cap) loves to stroll around the fourth floor platform of the ifc building while talking business. His female assistant always brings a luggage case equipped with a foldable seat just in case Xiaos wants to sit.

(Reuters) February 11, 2017.

Missing China-born billionaire Xiao Jianhua was whisked in a wheelchair from a luxury Hong Kong hotel in the early hours of Jan 27 with his head covered, a source close to the businessman told Reuters.

Xiao was carried into his own car at the entrance to the Four Seasons serviced apartments in the heart of the Asian financial hub in what appeared to be a "smooth operation", another source with knowledge of the matter told Reuters.

The comments from the sources confirmed a report in the New York Times on the disappearance of Xiao, who has close ties to senior Chinese officials and their families.

Despite a statement issued in Xiao's name over 10 days ago that he was seeking medical treatment overseas and had not been abducted, his disappearance has rekindled fears over Hong Kong's status as an independent judicial entity of China.

"It is uncertain if Xiao was conscious when he left," the second source said, adding that it took at least a few people to carry the billionaire into the car.

"There was no struggle in the whole process. You could even say it was efficient. It was a smooth operation."

Reuters could not independently verify the circumstances at the time Xiao was taken out of the hotel or the condition of his health.

Assistants of Xiao were waiting in the lobby of the hotel's serviced apartments when at least five people, dressed in casual attire, came in, said the second source, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue.

The group, which some media have reported were mainland Chinese agents, were escorted to Xiao's room by his assistants and they left shortly after with the businessman and some luggage, the second source said.

The source close to Xiao who said the billionaire left the hotel in a wheelchair said his head was covered with some cloth, but it was not clear what the material was. The source added that as far as he knew Xiao did not use a wheelchair and there was nothing wrong with his legs.

A Hong Kong police source who was briefed on the probe into Xiao's disappearance had previously told Reuters the case was initially treated as a "kidnapping" following a complaint from someone connected to Xiao.

But after a review of CCTV footage at the Four Seasons and at the border checkpoint, police concluded that Xiao had voluntarily left Hong Kong.

They said Xiao had entered mainland China through a border checkpoint on Jan 27 and that they were seeking more information on the case from Chinese authorities.

Police and the Four Seasons did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Saturday.

(Bastille Post) February 14, 2017.

The New York Times report is very different from the Hong Kong Police version. According to the Hong Kong Police, Xian Jianhua went to the mainland on January 27 via a border crossing. But the New York Times quoted two "persons who are informed about the investigation of the whereabouts of Xiao Jianhua" that Xiao was taken by boat to mainland China while skirting any border inspection. If the New York Times is right, then the Hong Kong Police is lying. According to an authoritative source, the New York Times story is "rubbish." The Hong Kong Police version is supported by facts (such as computer records and surveillance videos at the border crossing) but the boat route story is completely unsupported by any evidence. According to information, Xiao Jinhua and six other persons (including his two female bodyguards) left the Four Seasons Hotel in two vehicles and went to mainland China via the Lok Ma Chau crossing.

(SCMP) February 15, 2017.

In response to concerns that Xiao was abducted by mainland agents, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said: “No one should speculate on a matter like this, and anyone who has information should provide it to police.”

After a report on Saturday that Xiao was believed to have been transported by boat from Hong Kong and eluded border controls, Hong Kong police spokesman Wilson Fok reiterated on the weekend that Xiao entered the mainland via a border control point. Authorities on the mainland have not provided any information regarding Xiao.

(SCMP) February 19, 2017.

Hong Kong’s bustling Central district was quiet in the small hours of January 27, the last day of the Year of the Monkey, when two seven-seater vans quietly pulled up outside the luxury Four Seasons Place serviced apartments. The eve of the Lunar New Year is always a big occasion for family gatherings and the crowds on the streets were thinner than usual.

Five men left the vans at about 1am and went straight into the lift lobby. Moments later, they reappeared on the 28th floor and knocked on the door of mainland billionaire Xiao Jianhua, who was staying in one of the several apartments he had rented there for two years – each costing more than HK$200,000 (US$25,000) a month.

Two hours later, Xiao emerged with two female bodyguards and the five men. They got into the two vans and left the hotel precincts without making a scene. Almost 12 hours later, Xiao and his entourage reappeared at the Lok Ma Chau border crossing between Hong Kong and Shenzhen. They passed through border controls with valid documents and disappeared into the mainland Chinese city at 3pm.

In the weeks since, Xiao has been linked to mainland investigations into top-level bribery and market manipulation and the central government’s anxieties about financial and political risks.

The South China Morning Post pieced together the legendary mainland tycoon’s last 14 hours in Hong Kong based on information obtained from Hong Kong police and mainland sources and people close to Xiao. It has been unable to independently verify the information.

The people of Hong Kong were ignorant of Xiao’s disappearance until the next day, when his wife, Zhou Hongwen, reported a missing person case to the police.

The news spread like wildfire, immediately bringing back memories of the mysterious disappearance of several booksellers linked to a Causeway Bay bookstore a little over a year earlier. The booksellers had angered Beijing by publishing politically sensitive books and reports said two had been abducted by mainland security agents – one in Thailand and one in Hong Kong. The case, which rocked Hong Kong and made headlines around the world, sparked concerns about Beijing’s commitment to honouring the “high degree” of autonomy promised to the city for 50 years from 1997. Xiao’s disappearance exposed that raw nerve again, with some local and foreign media screaming “abduction” in their first headlines. Hong Kong police said later their records and surveillance camera footage showed Xiao left Hong Kong legally through a border control point.

Still, the curious circumstances of his departure, and the fact that his wife, who is also his most trusted business partner, was initially unaware of his whereabouts and alerted Hong Kong police to his disappearance, suggest Xiao left the city against his will. He might not have been bundled up and whisked away, but, to borrow the terminology of The Godfather, somebody may have made him an offer he could not refuse.

That’s effectively what mainland sources familiar with the case told the Post in the following days. In their version of the story, Xiao was fully aware of the January 27 visit, which was the final chapter of an ongoing, yearlong negotiation that ended with him agreeing to return to the mainland to help with an investigation into suspicious trading that disrupted China’s financial markets in 2015.

Two of the five people who knocked on his door that night were close friends of Xiao, the sources said.

“The others were strangers to Xiao but none of them were from the law-enforcement agencies,” the Post was told. “They were negotiators. In the end, he agreed to return to the mainland to assist the investigation.”

Officially though, China has never acknowledged that Xiao is on the mainland or in police custody. Adding to the confusion, Zhou withdrew the missing person report on January 29 – 48 hours after filing it. The official WeChat account of the Tomorrow Group – Xiao’s flagship company – released two statements after media reports about his disappearance, denying he had been abducted and saying he was “receiving medical treatments overseas”. The statements were removed from the social media platform on January 31 but reappeared a day later as an advertisement on the front page of one of Hong Kong’s Chinese-language broadsheet newspapers.

By then it had come to be an accepted fact that Xiao was in custody on the mainland. Some mainland media even started to report it as a matter of fact, despite there being no official announcement from Beijing that it had opened a case against Xiao.

The surprising twists and turns quickly captured the public imagination. Various accounts of how Xiao vanished from Hong Kong started to emerge. In one version reported by The New York Times and Reuters, he was seen leaving the serviced apartments in a wheelchair and with his head covered. Xiao was then taken to a boat that left Hong Kong bound for mainland China, “eluding border control”.

Police sources who spoke to the Post refused to verify if Xiao left the building in a wheelchair or if he was hooded. But they said they could not find any sign of a struggle at the scene. The Four Seasons Place – run by adjacent Four Seasons Hotel – is famous for its tight security. Visitors would not be allowed into the building at night without a tenant’s approval, a property agent told the Post. Hong Kong police have refused to release surveillance camera footage from the scene.

But police dismissed the reports that Xiao had left Hong Kong by boat and eluded border controls. On February 4, Secretary for Security Lai Tung-kwok said Xiao left Hong Kong for the mainland by passing through a border checkpoint. He also said the police investigation had found no evidence that mainland law-enforcement agents were involved in Xiao’s departure. But Lai also admitted there were unanswered questions and said he understood “the public is concerned”. He promised the police would continue their investigation and ask for more information from the mainland side.

(Bastille Post) May 22, 2017.

At 2am on January 27, a good friend of Xiao Jianhua came to visit at the Four Seasons Hotel. After conversing for some time, Xiao Jianhua left on a wheelchair at 3am in the company of bodyguards. He went to a place arranged by his friend to negotiate conditions. He proposed $1 billion to settle the matter. The response was that "money cannot solve this problem." After failing to negotiate, Xiao Jianhua gave up. At 3pm on January 27, he went through the normal procedure at Lok Ma Chau border crossing to return to mainland China.

After crossing into China, Xiao Jianhua moved into the place arranged by his friend. He immediately called his wife in Canada to say that he is in mainland China. His wife told him that the Hong Kong security company had called the police on January 28 that Xiao Jianhua is missing. Xiao told his wife to call the police and withdraw the missing person report. His wife notified the police by writing on January 30. She traveled to Japan next. She is now back in Vancouver.

Xiao Jianhua went back on the eve of Lunar New Year's Day. "According to custom, mainlanders hold family reunions on Lunar New Year's Day eve. They begin traveling on the first and second days of the Lunar New Year. By his cooperation, the Central Government was able to ban the people who can assist in the investigation from traveling overseas." According to information, the number of persons connected to the case (including witnesses) may well exceed 1,000.

(The Epoch Times) June 1, 2017.

Yuan Hongbing is a former Chinese law professor; he now lives in exile, penning books about corruption in China and the Communist Party’s plans to subvert Taiwan. He also maintains a network of contacts in the mainland. In a recent interview with the overseas Chinese-language media outlet Mingjing, Yuan claimed that a well-known Chinese billionaire, Xiao Jianhua, was involved in China’s stock market crash of summer 2015.

Yuan says that he knew Xiao Jianhua from their time together at Peking University, where Xiao was the youngest law student there in 1986, matriculating at age 15. Yuan at the time was part of the university’s faculty, and was director of that year’s law student body. He became acquainted with Xiao and says he even briefly employed him, at Peking University, after Xiao graduated. He said that they stayed in touch for some years afterwards.

In the interview he makes reference to key political figures in China, including Zeng Qinghong, the consigliere to former Party leader Jiang Zemin, Chen Yun, one of the Party’s godfather figures, and many others, all of whom he says Xiao was financially involved with. He claims that Xiao helped to engineer the 2015 stock meltdown as a way of striking back against Wang Qishan’s anti-corruption campaign. Following the crash, numerous figures in the financial sector were hauled in for questioning by anti-corruption investigators.

Following are translated excerpts from Yuan Hongbing’s interview with Mingjing, published online on May 25.

“Xiao Jianhua was once very close to Zeng Qinghong’s family — Zeng Qinghong’s son is Zeng Wei. He was also very close to Jiang Zemin’s family, as well as Zhang Dejiang’s family, Zhang Gaoli’s family and Liu Yunshan’s family.

“Among families of current and former Politburo members, and current and past standing committee members, the majority used Xiao Jiahua as their front man.

“Xiao Jianhua’s influence in the financial sector can be attributed to him getting help from Zeng Qinghong’s son. And his connections with Dai Xianglong and Zhou Xiaochuan were established mainly through the Chen Yun family.

“In China, all of the tens of millions of CCP officials were corrupt, without exception. Crony capitalism itself nurtures corruption. Corrupt officials fall into two groups: non-princelings, such as Guo Boxiong, Xu Caihou, Ling Jihua and Zhou Yongkang, and those princelings who were descendants of CCP generals and provincial level officials from the days when the CCP took power.

“Xi Jinping and Wang Qishan’s anti-corruption sweep has touched upon these families to a certain extent and has threatened the interests of these families. This is the background leading to the 2015 financial coup. The coup was conducted by Xiao Jianhua. When discussing the coup, princelings praised ‘the person from Beijing University’ as being courageous for having this kind of thinking.

“The aim of Xiao Jianhua’s coup was to get Xi Jinping to stop [the anti-corruption campaign] at the right time, or more specifically, to maintain the union of the tens of millions of corrupt officials with the cunning businessmen under the market economy of crony capitalism.

“From another point of view, it was a sign that the CCP’s internal political crisis had reached a critical point. Under the crony capitalist market economy, the union between corrupt officials and immoral businessmen is the political basis of centralized politics. Xiao Jianhua and Guo Wengui, and those who rely on the crony capitalist market economy, have challenged the system and even caused quite a serious threat to it. The current CCP totalitarian regime does not merely suffer from an economic crisis or simple economic corruption, but from political decadence.

“The purpose of the 2015 financial coup was to stop the central anti-corruption policy. More directly, it was about striking out against Wang Qishan.

“Through this financial coup, they wanted to take the power of the modern ‘Eastern Depot’ [in Chinese ‘dong chang’, a reference to a Ming dynasty secret police and spy agency] completely away from Wang Qishan.

“They thought that if Wang Qishan continued on this path, he would directly touch their interests.

“Since the source of corruption is rooted in the CCP’s crony capitalism, by not seeking to free the economic system from corruption, one can see that all anti-corruption efforts are actually just meant to protect the interests of the CCP’s power group.

“Chinese people in China and overseas must get a better understanding of the CCP’s tyranny as the most vicious curse on the Chinese nation. How to end the CCP’s tyranny as soon as possible is in China’s most fundamental political interest. The sooner the CCP ends, the fewer losses for China. If we allow the CCP to exist long-term, China will have no future.”

(SCMP) June 17, 2017.

With the benefit of hindsight, it seems China’s latest crackdown on its corruption-ridden and problematic financial sector was set in motion on the eve of the Lunar New Year, when the mysterious Chinese billionaire Xiao Jianhua was seen leaving the luxury Four Seasons Place apartments in Central and later passing through the border controls into Shenzhen, accompanied by female bodyguards and mainland investigators.

Xiao is no ordinary Chinese tycoon. Through his flagship company Tomorrow Group, he controls dozens of small commercial banks and securities brokerages in China and has top-level political connections. He represents a modern-day Chinese version of the robber barons who once held huge sway over China’s financial sector. In particular, paraphrasing a Chinese idiom, he is known for his powers to “call the wind and summon the rain” over the mainland’s stock markets.

He is apparently wanted for top-level bribery and market manipulation, particularly his role in the 2015 meltdown of the Chinese stock markets as leaders are increasingly worried about political and financial risks building up in the financial sector.

Once in custody, Xiao is believed to have been very cooperative, spilling the beans on his comprehensive under-the-table dealings with Chinese officials and his manipulation of the stock markets to his huge advantage.

President Xi Jinping (習近平) is believed to have flown into a rage and pounded his fist on the table after he was briefed about Xiao’s confessions, which depicted massive corruption in the financial sector.

This has directly contributed to Xi’s determination to clean up the financial sector. The first sign of that emerged on April 25 when Xi chaired a study session on financial security by all the Politburo members, the first time that such a session was devoted to the subject.

Contrary to previous study sessions where outside experts were invited to explain the chosen subjects, that study session saw top officials in charge of the central bank, securities, banking and insurance being called upon to explain the risks and controls.

High-level investigations have begun in earnest, leading to the sacking and detention of Xiang Junbo, former chairman of the China Insurance Regulatory Commission, and Yang Jiacai, assistant chairman of the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC).

The detention of those two officials suggests that the authorities are focused on the significant rise of privately owned insurance companies over the past decade and their risky practices of raising massive amounts of capital to fund high-profile acquisitions through improper sales of life insurance and wealth management products.

Since 2011, Xiang had presided over the private-insurers boom and he was reportedly probed for taking bribes in return for insurance licences. Meanwhile, as the assistant chairman of CBRC, Liu was in charge of regulating wealth management products.

In this context, it should come as no surprise that after weeks of intense speculation, Anbang Insurance confirmed in a statement early on Wednesday morning that its chairman Wu Xiaohui was unable to perform his duties for personal reasons. The brief statement came hours after leading Chinese business magazine Caijing reported that Wu had been taken away for investigation.

The detention of Wu is most likely to reverberate through political and business circles in China and beyond because he has been one of the nation’s most aggressive overseas investors who counted the purchase of the Waldorf Astoria hotel in Manhattan as one of his trophy acquisitions.

In fact, the Chinese leadership was first alerted to the rise of the nouveau riche insurers and risks they posed during the hostile takeover bid for Shenzhen-based Vanke, the world’s largest homebuilder, by insurer Baoneng last year. The acrimonious exchanges between Vanke and Baoneng have brought into the open the questionable practices in which those insurers raised massive amounts of money through sales of high-risk, high-return wealth management and insurance products. Then they would use the funds to undertake highly leveraged buyouts and raise their stakes in blue-chip banks and companies, often signalling an intent to change management.

Instead of bringing long-term stability, those insurers have become a debilitating force to the stock markets and the financial sector as a whole.

In the case of Anbang, Wu has used the funds to undertake a global shopping spree of properties and financial services firms, raising concerns among overseas regulators about his true intentions.

Going after the well-connected billionaires like Xiao and Wu is not risk free. They control assets worth trillions of yuan, and untangling their business empires, if not handled properly, could cause short-term economic uncertainties because their tentacles reach into so many key sectors. As partners to some well-known international fund managers and companies, their detentions would also cause anxiety among those investors, partly because investigations, usually conducted in secret, would take months, if not years.

Moreover, they are reportedly closely linked with the family members of many current and retired Chinese leaders, giving rise to speculation that the latest crackdown is somehow connected to intense political jockeying ahead of the Communist Party’s 19th congress set for the autumn.

While the political implications remain unclear, what is certain is that with the extensive clean-up of the financial sector now on full blast, more heads will roll.

(SCMP) June 19, 2017.

A Hong Kong police request for authorities from across the border to check whether billionaire Xiao Jianhua was taken by mainland law enforcement agents from a luxury hotel in the city remains unanswered since his mysterious disappearance five months ago.

Government sources said they believed Xiao was escorted back across the border by mainland law enforcement agents, but admitted there was nothing Hong Kong police could do if mainland authorities did not answer them. While Xiao was believed to be on the mainland helping with investigations, force insiders said they had no information because their counterparts over the border had refused to confirm or deny anything.

The Post has learned that Xiao did not carry a travel document when he left his serviced apartment at the Four Seasons Hotel in Central on January 27, suggesting he might not have known where he was being taken.

“Xiao was first driven to one of the city’s immigration control points, but he failed to produce his travel document and was not allowed to cross the border,” a source said.

His travel document, the source added, was later brought to him before he left the city through another control point, at Lok Ma Chau, as reported earlier. Xiao was seen in a car during an immigration inspection before the vehicle drove across the border.

The force is treating the case as “requested police investigation” and the Hong Kong Island regional crime unit is handling it.

“Police are continuing the investigations and do not have further information to provide at this stage,” the force told the Post.

Hong Kong police have asked mainland authorities to clarify Xiao’s situation and are seeking their assistance to identify a group of men who were with him when they left Four Seasons Hotel on January 27.

The police request was sent to the Ministry of Public Security in Beijing through the force’s liaison bureau in February. However, their mainland counterparts have yet to respond.

But another source said that officers were told: “Xiao’s family members have been able to communicate with him.”

The billionaire was in a wheelchair when he left his hotel suite with five or six unidentified men at about 3am that day.

Although investigations found no evidence suggesting he or his two female bodyguards had struggled with the men, the source said it appeared Xiao had faced “no choice” but to follow the men in leaving the hotel.

According to The New York Times, security guards at the hotel lobby questioned the men, who said they were part of Xiao’s security team and that the billionaire was ill and needed medical attention.

When asked whether it was possible Xiao had been sedated at the time, the sources said they did not know.

Instead of being taken to hospital, Xiao was driven across the border through Lok Ma Chau control point, at about 3pm that day – some 12 hours after leaving the Four Seasons Hotel.

Hong Kong’s security minister, Lai Tung-kwok, said earlier this year there was no indication that Xiao had left the city against his will or that mainland public security officers had carried out law enforcement work beyond their jurisdiction in the city.

Xiao was reported missing by his family on January 28. On the following day, his family asked police through a lawyer for the report to be withdrawn because Xiao had told his family he was safe.

His flagship company, The Tomorrow Group, also printed a front-page advertisement Xiao’s name in a local Chinese-language newspaper, saying he had not been abducted and that he was “recuperating abroad”.

(EJ Insight) February 3, 2017.

In a surprise announcement, University of Hong Kong (HKU) vice chancellor Peter Mathieson said he will be leaving his post in January next year, one year before his five-year term ends. Mathieson sent a message to HKU staff, students and alumni on Thursday about his plan, citing personal reasons, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports.

Mathieson, 57, took up the job in April 2014 after serving as dean of the University of Bristol medical and dentistry faculty. He said he decided to leave HKU after extensive consultations with his family, adding he was himself surprised by his premature departure. “The departure of one person must not be allowed to derail the progress being made at this great and venerable university,” Mathieson wrote.

HKU should continue with the many reforms and modernization to achieve the strategic vision that he and his team had set out for the next 10 years, he said, adding that he is optimistic about HKU’s future. "Perhaps most of all, repeatedly during the past three years we have articulated, promoted and defended the university’s core principles during a period of unprecedented political complexity in Hong Kong, ensuring that our students and staff can continue to flourish in an environment that respects their freedom of speech: long may this continue.”

Internet comments:

- (EJ Insight) Matheison will take up a similar position at the University of Edinburgh which has announced his appointment. Mathieson receives an annual salary of HK$4 million (US$515,519) at HKU. Timothy O’Shea, the sitting University of Edinburgh president, was paid HK$2.63 million in 2016.

- Well, well, well. In Hong Kong, the tax rate is 15% so Mathieson's after-tax income was about HK$3.4 million per annum. In Scotland, the tax rate is 35%, so Mathieson's after-tax income will be about HK$1.7 million per annum. Therefore Mathieson will be taking a 50% cut in income. Alternately, he is pissing away HK$1.7 million per annum. What sort of compelling personal reasons were those? Is it worth that much to proverbially "spend more time with the family"?

- (Hong Kong Free Press) January 3, 2017. Mathieson added that his new salary would be lower than his current one, but the pay cut was not an important factor.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) January 3, 2017. Mathieson cited “sentimentality” about Edinburgh as a pull factor, saying that the city was his father’s hometown and his family name is of Scottish origin.

- According to the 2016 QRS university rankings, University of Edinburgh is ranked #19 and the University of Hong Kong is ranked #27. According to the 2017 Times Higher Education World University Rankings, University of Edinburgh is ranked #27 and the University of Hong Kong is ranked #43. Therefore Peter Mathieson will be advancing his career.

- Here are the responses from those in authority:

(EJ Insight)  January 3, 2017. The Education Bureau said it was a personal decision by Mathieson, adding HKU can select a successor as quickly as possible in the school’s long-term interests and the well-being of students. HKU Council chairman Arthur Li said he respected Mathieson’s decision, adding that there was “absolutely no political reason” behind it.

- There is nothing else that the Education Bureau can say because they know as much or as little as anyone else. HKU personnel issues are left for HKU to handle.

- As for Arthur Li, how can he know that there was "absolutely no political reason" behind it? Is this what he really said? I doubt it. It is more likely that he said: "I am not aware of any political reason."

- (Hong Kong Free Press) January 3, 2017. Mathieson said he only discussed the decision with Li for the first time on Wednesday, by which time he had already accepted the job offer. “I just informed him of the decision I’d made and that I was going to resign, and I resigned later that day,” he said.

- Here are the students who made Peter Mathieson's job impossible:

 (EJ Insight)  January 3, 2017. HKU student union president Althea Suen called Mathieson’s decision “ridiculous” and “irresponsible” while her predecessor, Billy Fung, said Mathieson does not deserve the title of “defender of HKU core values”. Fung said Mathieson has not done anything beneficial to the school.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) January 3, 2017. Law student Michael Mo, who made headlines in recent months by complaining about alleged vote bribery during a campus election of the HKU Council, slammed the outgoing chief for failing to uphold electoral fairness, safeguard institutional autonomy, and protect students when Billy Fung was arrested by police following a chaotic Council meeting last year.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) January 3, 2017. Billy Fung Jing-en, former student union leader, said Thursday: “HKU was merely a stepping stone for [Mathieson] to gain ‘China experience’, polish his CV, then leave.”

- ( https://www.hk01.com/港聞/69329/-馬斐森辭職-葉建源-活於李國章陰影下-工作無癮 ) Althea Suen said that Mathieson was irresponsible and his resignation will affect the next vice chancellor. She said that Mathieson failed to defend the core values of Hong Kong University, even causing them to be eroded. She said that Mathieson worked against the students: "When the students demonstrate, he summoned the police. He had no idea what the students were protesting or fighting about." This has disappointed the students.

Billy Fung said that Mathieson's resignation is telling the world that HKU has a lot of problems. He is worried that the university management structure is incomplete, with the pro vice chancellor position still unfilled.

- (Oriental Daily) January 3, 2017. Second-year political science student Cheng said that Mathieson should leave as quickly as possible. He said that while Mathieson claimed to be defending academic freedom, he regarded the students as thugs when they engage in political resistance. He said that HKU does not need such a vice-chancellor. He has no hope for the next vice chancellor because none them will promote academic freedom.

- Every day you learn something new. The lesson of the day from student Cheng is: Political resistance = academic freedom. I bet that you didn't know that before today. I certainly didn't.

- When a bunch of students and non-student professional demonstrators surrounded the HKU Council members and screamed: "Don't let Arthur Li leave! Kill him! Kill him!" (see #627), Peter Mathieson called in the police to protect the council members. How did Mathieson fail to defend HKU core values? Is "killing people" a HKU core value?

- (Dictionary.com) Academic freedom:

1. freedom of a teacher to discuss or investigate any controversial social, economic, or political problems without interference or penalty from officials, organized groups, etc.

2. freedom of a student to explore any field or hold any belief without interference from the teacher.

By calling in the police, Mathieson is interfering with the the freedom of the students to explore the theory and practice of "killing people."

- Here are grown-ups speaking:

- ( https://www.hk01.com/港聞/69329/-馬斐森辭職-葉建源-活於李國章陰影下-工作無癮 ) On radio, Legislative Councilor Ip Kin-yuen (education sector) said that he can appreciate Mathieson's decision, because the latter had been living under the shadow of Arthur Li for the past two years.

As an example, Arthur Li met with HKU alumni in November last year and criticized the HKU drop in rankings. At the time, Mathieson could not rebut Li immediately and had to wait until the December Council meeting to cite other rankings to show that HKU's position has been steady. "Arthur Li kept debasing Hong Kong University and the vice-chancellor can only try to patch things up afterwards. This is not an very interesting job." Ip is worried that the next vice-chancellor will have to obey Arthur Li.

HKU Council member Cheung Tat-ming said that he expected this to happen because the situation was forcing Mathieson to consider his direction. At HKU, Mathieson's post was basically overridden by the HKU Council, with more than half of his staff positions not filled yet. Even though Mathieson has many inadequacies, Cheung can appreciate his predicament. Cheung also believes that Mathieson is naive. Cheung said that the selection process of a new vice-chancellor will be led by Arthur Li. If Li wants to focus on rankings and academic research, can the next vice-chancellor meet those goals while maintaining diversity and academic freedom at the university?

- Ip Kin-yuen says that there is nothing unseemly about the drop in QS World University Rankings. Since he can't understand anything but $money$, how about the drop in donations?

(Oriental Daily) December 22, 2015.

For the 2012/2013 academic year, Hong Kong University ran a surplus of $12.3 billion. For the 2013/2014 academic year, the surplus was $2.5 billion. For the 2014/2015 academic year, the surplus dropped more than 50% to $1.23 billion.

For the 2014/2015 academic year, the contribution from the University Grants Committee, tuition income, research revenues, rent incomes, etc all increased slightly. But donations and investment earnings dropped 55% and 44% respectively. Specifically, donations and benefactions went from $1,626,785,000 to $681,949,000.

Reference: The University of Hong Kong Annual Report

If a student studies normally, he/she will complete his undergraduate degree in four years. Professional student demonstrators may take a few years more. In any case, they will have to leave school and enter society. By definition, they are transients. So what do they care about the university rankings? Or donations and benefactions?

- (Hong Kong Economic Journal) February 2, 2017. Professor Yau Shing-tung said: "I have been in America for 47 years. I have never heard of any university letting students become part of the selection committee for university president. In fact, even professors can't join." Using Harvard University as the example, as a professor he received an email invitation from the board of trustees to give his opinion. The board makes the final decision. "A student who had just graduated from secondary school knows nothing about how the university  is run. He has not even learned the foundations. Why does he think that he is qualified to select the university president?"

Yau said that higher education is not democratic to begin with. "If we have a democracy, then why I am your teacher? How come I can decide whether you get a doctorate degree or not? We are not equals, because I know more than you do. Why else would you come and learn from me?"

- (SCMP) Hong Kong losing talent because of bickering and grandstanding. By Alex Lo. February 4, 2017.

In today’s no-can-do Hong Kong, bickering and grandstanding is the norm. Is it any wonder that good and smart people are leaving in droves? Soon we will be left with incompetent sycophants and rabble-rousing windbags in positions of power and influence.

News reports on the resignation of University of Hong Kong chief Peter Mathieson have described it as a shock and a surprise. But is it really?

The vice-chancellor once called it the best job in the world; it looks more like one of the worst. Caught between the student Red Guards on campus and the imperious and disruptive Arthur Li Kwok-cheung as council chairman, it must be a total nightmare. Who wouldn’t quit for the literally greener and more peaceful pasture of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, over the daily urban jungle warfare in Hong Kong?

Already, the usual suspects are speculating why Mathieson quit two years ahead of his contract’s expiry. The pan-democrats claim the pro-government management headed by Li is to blame. Others say it’s the highly politicised and divisive student body led by a few overly radicalised scholars. They are probably both right. Mathieson says he is quitting for “personal reasons”, the classic non-explanation when someone of importance prematurely quits his or her job in Hong Kong. A baptism by fire: HKU vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson’s term marked by political storms and mass protests

His resignation follows a pattern of eminent outsiders who failed to lead such public bodies because of constant infighting. West Kowloon Cultural District Authority CEO Michael Lynch quit in 2015 citing – you guessed it – “personal reasons”. His predecessor Graham Sheffield just bought a plane ticket and skipped town five months into his job. I am not condoning Sheffield’s behaviour, but can kind of understand it. The arts hub is a classic basket case of a public body led astray by bad government policymaking and constant politicising by the opposition.

HKU will soon have to launch a global search for a replacement. It already has two unfilled senior posts – those of the provost and the vice-president for institutional development. It’s telling that it will have so many senior vacancies. As the city’s oldest and most prestigious university, you would think people would be fighting over each other for a shot at the top. The university needs more than a scholar or manager, but a real politician and diplomat, to lead it. Good luck finding such a person.

- (SCMP) Vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson does not deserve Hong Kong. By Michael Chugani. February 7, 2017.

Peter Mathieson doesn’t deserve Hong Kong. That’s what I say. Everyone is aghast that he’s prematurely quitting as University of Hong Kong vice-chancellor for a similar job at the University of Edinburgh. But so what? Our academic freedom thrived long before we ever heard of him and it’ll survive long after he’s gone.

His exact words in quitting were: “There are very few universities in the world that could have tempted me to leave HKU but Edinburgh is one of them.” Translation: HKU sucks compared to Edinburgh. That makes him an opportunist.

HKU hired him in 2014 from Bristol University at an inflated salary, which he jumped at. We need to wonder if he would have landed the Edinburgh job if he was still medicine and dentistry dean at Bristol. The prestige of HKU acted as a stepping stone.

Mathieson said he would be taking a big pay cut but money is not the most important thing. Very noble. But the point is not that Edinburgh will pay him less. It’s why HKU paid him so much. He gets nearly HK$6 million a year, double what he’ll get at Edinburgh. If such extravagance sounds familiar, think of Jay Walder.

The MTR hired him in 2012 to run our railway at a bloated yearly salary of over HK$7 million, plus several million more in bonuses. It was far more than the HK$3 million he got as head of New York City’s subway system. Walder naturally jumped at it. He screwed up so badly that the MTR let him go after just two years but still gave him a golden handshake of a year’s pay.

Similar extravagance was extended to expatriates who came and prematurely quit top jobs at the West Kowloon Cultural District. This is what we are – suckers who either can’t produce our own talent or have no faith in them. We pay top dollar to outsiders who either can’t handle the job or use us as a stepping stone.

Mathieson was treated by some as the great white hope against meddling in academic freedom by HKU Council chairman Arthur Li Kwok-cheung. It has been over a year since Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying named Li as chairman. I dare anyone to come forward with credible proof, not politically biased claims, that academic freedom at HKU has declined.

- (Sing Tao) February 6, 2017. The Hong Kong Studentd Union is demanding that a full-time undergraduate student and a full-time graduate student be included on the Vice-chancellor Selection Committee.

- Why? The students are not competent to assess the academic achievements and research accomplishments of the candidates. For that matter, they are not competent to assess management ability and administrative experience. The only question that they can ask is: "If the students lay siege to the Hong Kong University Council and refuse to let council members leave upon threat of violence, will you summon the police to come on campus? Yes or no?" And then they will veto anyone YES man/woman.

(EJ Insight) Why democrats should choose ‘lesser evil’ and support CE bet. By SC Yeung. February 3, 2017.

The nomination process for the chief executive election will kick off in two weeks’ time.

Carrie Lam appears confident of obtaining more than the required 150 nominations from the pro-Beijing camp to qualify as a candidate, while other aspirants may still be struggling to gather enough support from election committee members to be able to join the race. While Beijing loyalists appear to be backing Lam at John Tsang’s expense, the opposition members in the election committee seem divided.

That’s not what many ordinary Hong Kong people expect from the pan-democrats. They want their representatives in the electoral panel to use their 300 votes well by supporting Tsang or any of the other candidates to make the decidedly small-circle election more competitive. They don’t want Lam to become Hong Kong’s next leader without even breaking a sweat.

However, some democrats such as legislator Eddie Chu are against nominating any of the four aspirants, preferring instead that their representatives in the election committee cast blank ballots to register their anger over an election where the true voice of the people is ignored.

But is boycotting the nomination and election process a good way to advance the cause of democracy?

On Thursday a coordinator for strategy of the more than 300 pan-democrats in the election committee said there’s a big chance the bloc will nominate former financial secretary John Tsang or retired judge Woo Kwok-hing as a candidate in next month’s chief executive election.

Civic Party lawmaker Dennis Kwok said Tsang and Woo hold views that are closer to the values and beliefs espoused by the pan-democratic camp, compared with former chief secretary Carrie Lam and New People’s Party chair Regina Ip.

Kwok said he hopes the two could join the race to make it more competitive. Pan-democratic members of the election committee have yet to meet the chief executive contenders before coming to a final decision.

He said any candidate the group nominates should either satisfy or at least not violate three principles – someone who could unite Hong Kong, protect the core values of the SAR and restart the political reform process outside of Beijing’s Aug. 31, 2014 framework.

With more than 300 votes in the committee, the pan-democrats should be able to nominate their own candidates and spur establishment candidates to focus on key issues, such as how to push forward Hong Kong democracy and how to stop the disqualification of democratically elected lawmakers.

But should the pro-Beijing camp focus their awesome nominating power of more than 600 votes on Lam, other aspirants would have less chances of making a good showing in the electoral fight. To ensure that Lam will face a tough election, the pan-democrats have the responsibility to send either John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing, or both, to the race.

Such a situation would prompt the candidates, including those supported by the pro-Beijing camp, to be more aware of what the Hong Kong people expect of them, and to seek their support.

In fact, several pan-democratic members of the election committee, who are pushing for genuine universal suffrage, have made it clear that they wouldn’t support an aspirant who will accept Beijing’s political reform proposal. They insist that candidates who don’t oppose the Aug. 31, 2014 roadmap have no right to join the race.

These electors still remember their experience in the 79-day Occupy Movement of 2014, and believe that the people’s sacrifices in those protests should not just go to waste. However, the fact remains that the candidates could not just ignore Beijing’s roadmap as the central government is ultimately ruling Hong Kong. If the pro-democracy electors could not accept this reality, they might as well quit the committee and not participate in the election at all.

In fact, the pan-democrats have been debating whether to adopt a “lesser evil” approach and nominate a candidate whose values and beliefs are closer to theirs, or simply cast blank ballots and thus abandon their right to nominate a candidate. Based on the chief executive hopefuls’ track records, it could be said that both Tsang and Woo are preferable to Lam and Ip.

One point worth mentioning is that Tsang’s suggestion of developing land in the New Territories both for the village houses of indigenous people and flats under the government’s home ownership scheme originated from lawmaker Edward Yiu, who is opposed to the “lesser evil” approach.

Writing in his blog, commentator Martin Oei said Tsang is the only candidate who has adopted some policy initiatives from the democratic camp as part of his campaign platform. That being the case, shouldn’t Tsang be considered a better chief executive material than Lam and Ip?

The democrats, in fact, can listen to their supporters’ views via a “public nomination” process initiated by Benny Tai of the University of Hong Kong, which will be held from Feb. 7 to 22. That could be the best way to engage the public in this small-circle election. And the democrats will have no choice but to abide by the results. If most of their supporters cast blank ballots during the nomination, then they should abandon their nominating right. But if their supporters signify their preference for a candidate or more than one candidate, then they should follow the people’s choice.

The democrats in the election committee should understand the rules of the game. They are participating in a small-circle election not to show that they have the moral high ground but to show their strength to fight the combined forces of the Liaison Office and the Beijing loyalists. Let’s be clear about that matter.

Internet comments:

- (The Stand News) February 1, 2017.

Strategically, the Chinese Communists are preparing to make four moves in Hong Kong.

1. Divide the pan-democrats (by absorbing the moderates and destroying the radicals)
2. Cause the people to abandon the pan-democrats
3. Eliminate the pan-democrats altogether
4. Unify Hong Kong under Communist rule

We can see how the Chinese Communists have been sapping the pan-democrats from the emergence of the Localist movement and its subsequent schisms. By positioning the Localists as standing for Hong Kong independence and by using the National People's Congress Standing Committee interpretation of Basic Law Article 104 (against the two Localists' Legco oaths of office), the Chinese Communists have set up the Localists on the opposite side against the people.

The Chinese Communists are now going to use the Chief Executive election to further the takedown of the pan-democrats.

At this time, the pan-democrats are faced with a dilemma:

1. If they don't vote for John Tsang, the people will condemn them for not respecting the people's will.

2. If they vote for John Tsang who becomes Chief Executive, then Tsang will enter with high public support and the pan-democrats will lose their selling point. Besides, how can you vote for someone and immediately turn around to obstruct all his policies?

Some people think that those people with high principles are detached from practical reality. In fact, the opposite is true. The pan-democrats are in fact most concerned about the practical consequences.

If and when John Tsang is elected, the pan-democrats will be divided:

1. The moderates will join the establishment, with some of them even taking government jobs.

2. The right-wing and the ardent pro-democracy activists will leave in disappointment and even retaliate/boycott against the pan-democrats.

3. The remaining pan-democrats will lose support. The citizens want to rehabilitate/recuperate/recover as John Tsang says. The voices of opposition will die down. John Tsang will initially avoid the more controversial issues (such as constitutional reform) and focus on livelihood issues to enhance his public support. The pan-democrats will find it impossible to fight a popular government head on. Their seats will be eventually taken over by the pro-establishment camp.

The 327 pan-democratic elector votes are a bait and the two Evils (John Tsang and Carrie Lam) becomes a trap for the pan-democrats. This may not have been the original plan of the Central Government, but they definitely don't mind reaping the harvest now.

Can the dilemma be solved? If the pan-democrats don't vote for John Tsang, the citizens say that they will pay the pan-democrats back in the next elections. They may even vote for the pro-establishment camp just to spite the pan-democrats.

The Civic Party is divided in their opinions, Demosisto does not want to vote for John Tsang, Leung "Long Hair" Kwok-hung and Albert Cheng indicate that they may also run for Chief Executive ... this means that some people have discerned that there is a serious problem now.

- (The Stand News) February 3, 2017.

The pan-democrats probably didn't expect that they would leap from the ecstasy of winning 327 seats on the Election Committee to the dilemma of choosing between two Evils now. Some of them want to stick to their principles and ideals, while others want to be pragmatic. Before they even cast their votes, they are seriously divided and the people are displeased with them. Regardless of what happens, some people will abandon the pan-democrats afterwards. The Central Government may not have planned this originally, but this outcome suits them just fine.

... The citizens want to rehabilitate/recuperate/recover. That is not wrong. The problem lies with the pan-democrats.

The biggest mistake of the pan-democrats is that their goals were fuzzy. In order to win over the largest number of supporters, the pan-democrats usually embrace as many issues as possible including many unrealistic goals. This allows them to win support across the entire political spectrum. For example, the Democracy 300+ has three principles:

1. No support for the re-election of CY Leung
2. Oppose the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee and restart the process for double universal suffrage as soon as possible
3. Defend Hong Kong core values

That was how they won 327 Election Committee seats by promising different things to different voters. So now they are in a situation in which some people want principles and others want pragmatism, some people want war and others want peace. So whatever the pan-democrats eventually do, some people will be crying betrayal and deception.

This mistake had appeared previously during the Umbrella Revolution. The supporters had varying demands: some people want genuine universal suffrage, some people want CY Leung to leave office, some people sympathize with the students, some people oppose police violence, some people are anti-Communist, some people are anti-social, etc. Because the pan-democrats could not lead the masses with clearly articulated principles and goals, the movement was doomed to fail.

- Civic Party legislative councilor Dennis Kwok Wing-hang on TVB, showing us how to "have one's cake and eat it too":


"When I nominate a person, it does not mean that I support that person"

(HKG Pao) February 3, 2017.

Yesterday on television, Dennis Kwok said: "We received a lot of feedback that the most basic expectation of the people of Hong Kong is that there must be a competitive election. Thus, we deal with the nomination and the election separately. When I nominate a person, it does not mean that I support that person. Therefore, we still have a great deal of hope for his position on the August 31st resolution." [Kwok did not specify whether this 'he' is John Tsang or Woo Kwok-hing.]

Film director Ko Chi-sum responded on Facebook: "'When I nominate a person, it does not mean that I support that person.' Whoever said this is suffering from split personality. So this lawyer is saying: Just because you and I went to file at the marriage registry does not mean that I am marrying you."

- Kwok says: "I nominate him but I don't support him. However, I hold great hopes about him." I am the one who is going to get a case of split personality the more I listen to people like him.

- "The nomination is completely different and separate from the election"? When I heard this, I thought that I must be hallucinating.

- First, they tell us that one-person-one-vote based upon the August 31st resolution is totally unacceptable because it is a universal standard to have one-person-one-vote with civil nomination. 32 countries in the world have it, so must we. Without civil nomination, it will still be a "small-circle election" restricted to a few candidates screened by the Chinese Communists through the 1200-person Election/Nomination Committee. Therefore they cast the veto. That is why we wind up with the same Chief Executive election system this year as before.

Now that the election is here, they actually competed and won 327 seats on the Election/Nomination Committee and they are debating and rationalizing their strategies in this "small-circle election" that they previously denounced.

Fuck! So why didn't they accept the August 31st framework and take universal suffrage (one-person-one-vote) just as the United States and the United Kingdom recommended, and then come back to fight for the seats on the Election Committee? All they had to do was to round up enough nominations for John Tsang and the people will elect John Tsang via one-person-one-vote!

- You want to know why they are wasting your time? It's because they want your money. The longer it takes to reach "genuine universal suffrage", the more money you are going to donate to them!

- Which orange is less rotten to the pan-democrats?

- Look7s Facebook

Not supporting John Tsang means supporting Carrie Lam?

I only know that John Tsang supports the August 31st resolution and Article 23.
I want genuine universal suffrage?
I spit at you!

- (The Stand News) By Wan Chin. February 5, 2017.

Only evil people will choose the less evil politicians. The people of Hong Kong are supporting John Tsang (who supports the legislation of Article 23 and the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee) because John likes to watch Hong Kong soccer and he is sympathetic to the amount of homework assigned to elementary school children (who study at the schools which are able to operate only because they receive vast amount of subsidies given to them by Financial Secretary John Tsang).

Carrie Lam also supported the legislation of Article 23 and the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee. But she does not watch Hong Kong soccer and she has no sympathy for the amount of homework assigned to elementary school children. Therefore she must be more evil.

The most evil rulers in history are the Chinese Communists. Any Hong Kong politician is automatically less evil when compared to the Chinese Communists. Therefore, as far as these born slaves are concerned, we can forget freedom/democracy because any dickhead can rule over these slaves.

- Wan Chin Facebook

Why is John Tsang being supported by the treacherous pan-democrats? John Tsang is a believer in small-government/big-market. Small-government/big-market means meting out public powers to financial groups and privatizing government services. The privatization of Link REIT, the merger of the train/subway services, the Mandatory Provident Fund, selling off public housing, privatizing education, outsourcing cleaning/security services, commercializing healthcare, internationalizing the universities, privatizing columbaria, privatizing welfare services ... Haven't you had enough already? How dumb can Hongkongers be to donate money to John Tsang?

What was being done here? Damn it! This is known as neoliberalism ... I must congratulate the people of Hong Kong. The 300+ pan-democratic votes should be fucking handed over to John Tsang. The people of Hong Kong should remember to find nails for their coffins.

- (SCMP) John Tsang – the most imperfect of our imperfect leadership hopefuls. By Alex Lo. February 13, 2017.

Among most pan-democrats, John Tsang Chun-wah is considered “the lesser of two evils” if it comes down to a choice between him and Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor for chief executive. He is also, presumably, better than Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, a dark horse in the race.

“Evil” is a strong word. For the record, I don’t think the three of them are evil in the theological sense of the word. But let’s play along with the pan-democrats’ semantics. I would think Tsang is the “evilest” of them all. Why?

Evil requires agency; you choose to do something bad. So what are the worst things that have tainted the government careers of the three leadership hopefuls? With Ip, it’s the failure to pass a national security law – required under Article 23 of the Basic Law – on sedition, secession and subversion in 2003, when she was security secretary. For Lam, the former chief secretary, it would have to be the democratic reform debacle in 2015. And for Tsang? His misestimates of the budget year after year leading to massive giveaways that are surely among the most wasteful in the annals of public finance. I would argue that Tsang has done far more damage to Hong Kong than the other two.

If you believe we have a constitutional duty to achieve universal suffrage under the Basic Law, then we have no less a constitutional obligation to enact a national security law. In fact, if we had done so in 2003, there would have been less mistrust between the city and the central government, which might have imposed a less restrictive framework on the failed electoral reform package. Ip didn’t pick the job; Article 23 was handed to her.

As for the failed reform package, once Beijing had imposed its restrictive conditions, there was nothing Lam could do as its chief “saleswoman” in Hong Kong other than taking the blame.

By contrast, Tsang chose to give away HK$220 billion between 2007 and 2014, most of which ended up going to the moneyed and propertied classes. And this is the guy who thinks we need to save for the future so we shouldn’t spend on welfare, health care or anything to improve our living standards.

For misusing the public coffers and impoverishing us at a time of plenty, I say Tsang is pretty much disqualified from the top job.

- (SCMP) In the topsy-turvy world of Hong Kong politics, black can be white. By Alex Lo. March 6, 2017.

According to Hong Kong deputies who were present at the weekend meeting with Zhang Dejiang (張德江), the National People’s Congress chairman said the central government had the last word on who could be appointed the city’s chief executive.

Some people in Hong Kong seem to be shocked by it. It’s actually not even news. The Basic Law clearly spells out the chief executive is accountable to the central government (Article 43) and must be appointed by it (Article 45).

It seems all the brouhaha is really about whether Beijing would be willing to appoint underdog John Tsang Chun-wah should he win the election race later this month.

Zhang repeated Beijing’s standards for appointing the next chief executive: “Love the country and love Hong Kong, trusted by Beijing, and capable of governing and is supported by Hong Kong people.”

While Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor is clearly Beijing’s favourite, is there any reason to think Tsang may not be acceptable to the central government? Would Beijing risk a political crisis just to prevent someone as unthreatening as Tsang to take up the top post? It seems absurd.

Perhaps the only reason this is even being discussed is that in the topsy-turvy world of Hong Kong politics, Tsang is being championed by the pan-democrats on the Election Committee. It’s good the pan-dems have a chance to play kingmaker, but this doesn’t make Tsang one of them.

Lam is hated by the pan-dems because she has been closely associated with outgoing chief executive Leung Chun-ying and because she is Beijing’s babe. But in some ways, Lam is much closer ideologically to the pan-dems than Tsang, at least when it comes to livelihood issues and her commitment to social welfare, housing, education and health care.

By contrast, during his decade-long tenure as finance chief, Tsang had been stingy with the government’s overflowing coffers, and practised what could only be described as capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. That’s what he meant by “small government, big market”.

Lam has at times shown initiative to exploit leeway when the leash on her has not been too tight. Tsang, knowing he was not Beijing’s first choice, would go out of his way to demonstrate loyalty should he become the city’s next leader. My guess is that he would make an even more docile lapdog.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Congratulations to chief executive candidate John Tsang, the ‘lesser of two evils’? By Kent Ewing. February 14, 2017.

Congratulations to John Tsang Chun-wah, who in his nine years as Hong Kong’s finance chief could not forecast an accurate budget and whose biggest idea during that time was to put 16 overpriced food trucks on our already overcrowded streets.

Five dumplings for HK$40? No thanks.

And yet, according to recent opinion polls, by a double-digit margin this is our city’s most popular choice to become the next chief executive. How did a man of such demonstrably limited accomplishment and ability become the people’s choice to save Hong Kong from the suffocating grip of the central government on the one hand and the chaotic fantasies of localists on the other?

Tsang, 65, may not have many highlights to boast about in his 35 years as a Hong Kong bureaucrat, but he has shown an astute feel for the changing political pulse of the city. Indeed, although he only recently announced his candidacy to be Hong Kong’s next leader, he has spent the past year using his weekly blog, Facebook page and public utterances to create a softer, more pro-Hong Kong image than his former boss and current chief executive, Leung Chun-ying, widely perceived as a Beijing puppet who as a matter of course puts the interests of the Chinese leadership ahead of those of the 7.3 million people who live here.

For God’s sake, Leung wouldn’t even go so far as to support the city’s football team in its World Cup qualifying matches against China, making it look like Tsang was bravely defying the powers-that-be in Beijing by openly cheering for the local squad.

That hardly makes Tsang a political genius, but Leung’s tone-deaf response to the people he is supposed to serve has allowed the man once dubbed “Mr. Pringles” (due to his uncanny resemblance to the famous crisp mascot) to now cast himself, by comparison to Leung, as Mr. Everyman, even if that perception is light years from the truth. Mr. Everyman, for example, does not define the middle class as people who, like himself, drink coffee, enjoy French movies and (before his December resignation as finance secretary) earned HK$319,000 a month.

Talk about tone deaf—but, again, five years of comparisons with the reviled CY have inevitably redounded to Tsang’s favour. Vis-a-vis his foremost rival in the CE election—former chief secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who remained lockstep loyal to Leung during her nearly five years as the city’s No. 2 official—Tsang also appears as the populist more in tune with the hopes and dreams of ordinary Hong Kong people while Lam is Beijing’s new chosen one denounced by a growing army of critics as CY 2.0.

This newly minted Tsang image is tempting pan-democrats, who have traditionally condemned the small-circle CE election as a farce and run a protest candidate of their own, to throw their support behind Tsang this time around even as one of the more radical and histrionic members of the pan-dem camp, “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, contemplates jumping into the contest.

The pan-dems control a quarter (326) of the 1,194 seats on the Election Committee, enough to possibly be a kingmaker in a Lam-Tsang contest but not enough (601) for one of their own to be elected.

But would pan-dem support for Tsang legitimise a farcical election and undermine the camp’s claim to be the standard bearers for true democracy in the city, as Long Hair claims, or would such a move be a savvy acknowledgement of political reality in a choice between the lesser of two evils?

It should be noted here that Long Hair—who pledges to join the race if he receives nominations from at least one percent (37,790) of the Hong Kong electorate in an ongoing unofficial public nomination campaign—has excoriated his pan-dem colleagues in the past for putting up CE candidates (namely the Civic Party’s Alan Leong Kah-kit and the Democratic Party’s Albert Ho Chun-yan) who he maintained lent legitimacy to Beijing’s control of the Election Committee and thus to the undemocratic final result. Now he wants to be that candidate? Go figure.

Anyway, whether Long Hair receives 37,790 nominations or not—and he probably will—it is hard to imagine most pan-dems supporting as a serious CE candidate a man whose political career has itself been largely defined by farce and folderol.

Tsang will continue to court moderate pan-dems with his mildly populist rhetoric while at the same time shoring up his support in the business community. Meanwhile, he is likely to maintain his lead over Lam in public opinion polls as she suffers the double curse of being considered CY’s most loyal underling and Beijing’s golden girl—a lethal public-relations combo in today’s Hong Kong.

As for the other pro-establishment candidate hoping to lead the city, Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee’s campaign has failed to gather enough steam to make her a contender; embarrassingly, in a South China Morning Post survey released last week, public support for the former security tsar even lags behind that of retired judge Woo Kwok-hing, whose quixotic quest has been largely ignored by the movers and shakers in Hong Kong’s business and political circles as well as by much of the public.

That leaves the popular Tsang, the Beijing-anointed Lam and an Election Committee over which, even with its increased pan-dem membership, the central government still exercises sufficient control to assure that its chosen candidate wins.

Will Beijing force Lam on the people of Hong Kong or maybe, just maybe pull back in the interest of restoring some semblance of harmony and stability and allow Tsang to become the city’s fourth chief executive?

And, indeed, if the latter small miracle were to occur, it would need to be followed by a somewhat larger one: Tsang would have to be equal to the task.

- (Passion Times) February 21, 2017.

In 2005, Chief Secretary Donald Tsang took over from Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa. In 2004, there were 400,000 marchers on July 1st. In 2005, the number dropped down to 20,000 in a huge reversal of public opinion. People thought that peace will be with us forever afterwards. At the time, I and my fellow students printed leaflets that warn the marchers not to harbor any illusions about Donald Tsang. Firstly, the problem is with the system and not specific individuals. Secondly, Tsang is part of the Tung administration and responsible for the bad policies. However, we were pilloried by the marchers. They said that we should not be opposing for the sake of opposing, and that Donald Tsang is better than Tung Chee-wah.

Twelve years later, Donald Tsang is in jail. What do those people think now? Perhaps those freedom fighters have completely forgotten about the episode already. But those people will continue to say that we should not be opposing for the sake of opposing. The only difference is that they are now saying that John Tsang is better than Carrie Lam.

Twelve years ago, the newspaper proclaimed that "the Middle Class has awakened." Today the leftist retards are proclaiming that "the Yellow Ribbons have awakened." Twelve years ago, the awakening disappeared as soon as Donald Tsang took over from Tung Chee-hwa. Today, the awakening is disappearing because "I want genuine universal suffrage" has just been replaced by "I want John Tsang." Political awakening? My arse!

... In 2003, people believed in simple political jargon such as "Democracy may not be able to solve all the problems, but it can drive bad leaders off", "Democratic elections can elect leaders who represent the people." Tung Chee-hwa departed and Donald Tsang took over not by any democratic process. However, people acted as if it was a victory for democracy and then stopped marching.

In 2014, the good people of Hong Kong chanted "I want genuine universal suffrage." They believed that the non-violent love-in will vanquish guns and tanks. During Occupy Central, they spoke of electing their own Nelson Mandela. But now the election is here, they are talking about the importance of being the critical minority and the strategic necessity of "choosing John Tsang and Article 23 legislation because this is better than having Carrie Lam."

There has never been any total political awakening, because the good people of Hong Kong won't even hold onto their own ideas and beliefs: "We must not be so stubborn! It is more pragmatic to support someone who is going to be infinitesimally better!" Inside the hearts of the people of Hong Kong, you won't find idealism, you won't find beliefs, you won't find dignity, you won't find any so-called core values. You will only find opportunism: "Ideals are ideas. It is more practical to eat whatever is cooked! You need to be flexible!"

Opportunism is the strongest political principle in Hong Kong. The good people of Hong Kong look for the smallest opportunities, and end up losing on both principles and outcomes. This is why we don't have freedom, democracy and autonomy. We gather around to debate whether the rotten apple is better than the rotten orange, or whether curry-flavored shit tastes better than shit-flavored curry. On this day, Donald Tsang was sentenced to jail. Some day soon, it may be the turn for another "lesser evil" to fail.

Do you support/oppose the following Chief Executive candidates:
John Tsang: 56.6% support, 19.9% oppose
Carrie Lam: 45.9% support, 37.1% oppose
Woo Kwok-hing: 27.9% support, 39.7% oppose
Regina Ip: 24.7% support, 54.5% oppose

If the Chief Executive election were to take place tomorrow and these are the only candidates, who would you vote for?
John Tsang: 38.0%
Carrie Lam: 35.3%:
Woo Kwok Hing: 10.1%
Regina Ip: 7.3%
None of the above: 5.4%
Don't know/hard to say/no opinion: 3.9%

(YouTube) Man attacked by tiger at zoo in Ninggo, East China

(Shanghaiist) January 30, 2017.

A man was mauled to death by tigers in front of his wife and kids at a zoo in Ningbo on Sunday after allegedly climbing into their enclosure by mistake while trying to avoid paying for an entrance ticket. The man surnamed Zhang was visiting the zoo with his wife, kids, his coworker surnamed Li and Li's wife. Li told CCTV News yesterday that while the women and children bought tickets and entered the zoo normally, both the men decided to try their luck scaling the zoo's 3-meter-tall outer wall, despite warnings and wire netting.

Once over, Zhang continued on, scaling the next 3-meter wall in their path, unassumingly hopping down inside the tiger enclosure. Li did not follow his friend. What happened next was horrifying caught on video. Footage circulating online show a pack of tigers surrounding Zhang before staff used fireworks and water guns to scare them away. However, one tiger remained unperturbed and continued to drag Zhang away. Eventually, workers shot and killed the tiger and carried Zhang out of the enclosure. In total, the rescue took over an hour. Zhang was rushed to the hospital for emergency treatment where he succumbed to his injuries and died.

Since then, mourners have flooded onto Chinese social media. Not for Zhang, but for the tiger that was killed. "A fucking idiot climbs over two walls into a tiger's home and the tiger gets shot and killed for doing what is natural. How is that fair? They should have just let him die," argued one among many netizens who have criticized the zoo's response.

Internet comments (from Hong Kong):

- (Bastille Post Facebook)

- They should have used the policy at South African wildlife parks. If a person is injured while intruding into the park, they should shoot the person rather than the animal on humanitarian grounds. The animal is not at fault. Tolerating human mistakes merely means that they will persist.

- It is so fucking sad for the lion. The mainlander deserves no sympathy.

- It is alright for you to die. But you also caused the tiger to die with you.

- So sad for the tiger!

- Japanese soldier in TV show:

"No Chinaman is ever innocent"

- The meaning of the whole incident is that Chinese people must never climb the wall (and visit the Internet world outside).

- He climbed the wall in order to avoid paying the admission fee. He deserves to die.

- Beast eats beast. This is business as usual.

- The family will demand reparations because the zoo wall was only 3 meters tall. If the wall was 5 meters tall, Mr. Zhang would still be alive.

- (HKG Pao) Comments over at pro-democracy Apple Daily:

- Apart from "He fucking deserves to die" I can think of nothing else to say.

- Mainlanders are mostly stupid, ignorant, lacking in any sense of crisis, unable to properly deal with things, and barbarously unreasonable. The policies and reactions of the administrators were also incompetent ... that is what they are mostly. So pathetic.

- There are too many fake products in China. This guy probably thought that it was a paper tiger.

- Mainlanders will do anything. Last time, a woman got out of the car and got hauled away by a tiger. Here is another case.

- Being an animal is very unsafe in mainland China. The tiger did nothing wrong. The man went in to provoke the tiger. The tiger attacked the man in order to defend its turf and companions. Why did the tiger have to die? Sooner or later, these people are going to kill off all the animals at the zoo.

By midday, there were most than 10,000 LIKE's/SMILEs for this post compared to fewer than 800 SADs. Is this an incident to LIKE? Does the man deserve to die just because he is a mainlander? Do people become cold-blooded and inhumane when they read Apple Daily too often?

So far the story about the man named Zhang has multiple versions. One version has it that he went in there to save his son. Would you be ashamed to have said that Zhang deserves to die? Can't you wait for the investigation to finish and all the facts are known?

- (Apple Daily) January 29, 2017.

- According to an eyewitness, a zoo keeper was feeding the tigers at the time. A male tourist leapt over the fence and went up to tease the tiger up close. The tiger pounced and bit the tourist. The other tigers also surrounded the tourist. According to other tourists, the tiger hill is separated from the viewing area by a river. The tourist would have to traverse the river in order to reach the tiger.

- Mainland tourists want to touch and feel everything that come across. It is fortunate in this case that only one person has died. This is an improvement of sorts already.

- Mainlanders can't tell the difference between cats and tigers.

- In summary
(A) it is the fault of the tiger
(B) the zoo should never have any real tigers in there
(C) the zoo should use the public address system to remind people not to provoke the tigers every 5 seconds
(D) the zoo did not feed the tiger
(#) the zoo did not instruct the tiger not to play with tourists

- The Shina animal fucking deserves to die. It is a tragedy for the tiger to be killed. I hope that the Shina animal race will be exterminated.

- Maybe the guy wanted to commit suicide, so he tried to do the tiger a favor by offering himself as food. Unfortunately the zoo keepers killed the tiger in order to save the guy.

- This is good news for the Lunar New Year to see a Chinaman eaten by a tiger.

- What a stupid man! Even kids know not to provoke a tiger! But an adult does not know that! He deserves to be bitten to death by the tiger!

- "It was reported that the tiger has been killed." That can't be true. The tiger is a Class I protected animal in mainland China. Even if a human life is at risk, the zoo keeper cannot shoot to kill a tiger. According to the news report, the zoo keepers used firecrackers, water guns, etc to chase away the tigers. They did not use hunting rifles. If the tiger died, the zoo would have no legal defense.

- Stupidity has no cure, especially when it is embedded in the genes.

- This is the typical egocentricity of mainlanders. They think that they are the center of the universe and everything has to go as they wish.

- Tigers are a rare species which must not be touched. There are 1.4 billion mainlanders, so killing a few is immaterial.

- Every time that a bad thing happens, there is a battle of words between Hongkongers and mainlanders. If this incident occurred anywhere else in the world, we would just be saying RIP. But since the deceased is a mainlander, we end up with tons of racist comments.

- Ko Chi-sum's Facebook

Whose fault was it?

The zoo, because they charge high admission fees and force people to commit crimes.

The zoo, because they did not build an intrusion-proof facility.

Mr. Zhang, because he climbed the wall in order not to pay the admission fee like he should. [In like manner, when someone gets electrocuted by sticking two fingers in the wall plug, it is always the fault of the electricity supply company.]

The tiger, because it was not tamed.

Humankind, because one should never capture animals to exhibit for profit.

In summary, it is society's fault. It always is.

- (Oriental Daily) January 30, 2017. According to the relative Mr. Yang, "No matter what, Mr. Zhang went in over the back wall. The zoo management was negligent because they allowed the opportunity. If they gave no opportunity, nobody would have tried to scale the wall. Since the zoo was negligent, people were tempted to scale the wall and avoid paying the admission fee."

- If you rob the bank because you saw a flaw in the security system, does that mean that it was all the bank's fault? If you get arrested, can you blame the bank for everything?

- When you want to think that way, no high wall can hope to stop you from fulfilling your own death wish.


Surveillance video screen capture

(SCMP) January 30, 2017.

Street food lovers and hawkers ushered in a peaceful Year of the Rooster with thousands enjoying delicacies and soaking up the atmosphere in Mong Kok over the first two nights of the Lunar New Year, but not without a heavy police presence.

According to a police source, around 300 police personnel were on the ground to patrol the Mong Kok and Sham Shui Po districts. Most were stationed in Mong Kok, the scene of a riot last year, which saw more than 100 officers injured. Some 200 were scheduled to be deployed in the two ­districts last night.

Hours into the first day of the Year of the Monkey last year, protesters hurled bricks, set fires and clashed with police. Radical localists alleged the riot began as a protest against a crackdown on illegal street food hawkers, but health minister Dr Ko Wing-man countered that food safety inspectors were merely patrolling the area.

In contrast, the atmosphere was lively and orderly in the area on Saturday, the first day of the Lunar New Year, and up to 10pm yesterday. Some 20 hawkers set up each day along Portland Street, outside Langham Place.

A first-time hawker, who wished to be known only by his surname Lo, said he was a little worried about setting up stall in the area after the Mong Kok riot, but felt that “it is only Lunar New Year with hawkers around”, so he decided to go ahead with it. Lo said there were hundreds of police officers around on Saturday night, taking down the ID numbers of some of the hawkers, but no arrests were made.

Another hawker, who did not wish to be named, said Portland Street was closed to vehicles on Saturday night. While he thought the heavy police presence dampened the festive spirits a little, he acknowledged that officers helped to keep order, with thousands of people streaming through the stretch of Portland Street outside Langham Place.

A customer said he enjoyed the “lively atmosphere” created by the hawkers, and was relieved that there was no repeat of last year’s riot. “I grew up eating local street food from hawkers and this is an important part of Hong Kong ­culture,” he said.

Internet comments:

- HK Discuss Forum Facebook

Here are some observations along Portland Street near Langham Place (Mong Kok).

First of all, the snacks are extremely expensive. $15 for a stick of squid; $30 for a small bag of fish balls; $20 for two pieces of stinky tofu; $18 for a small bottle of coconut juice. The prices are at least 50% more expensive than at the food stall located around the corner.

The food stall pays very expensive rent. The unlicensed vendors pay zero rent. When the unlicensed vendors are charging 50% more than the food stall, it is not standard economics in operation. Somebody is taking advantage of the fact that citizens are willing to pay a premium for inferior products in the right setting during the Lunar New Year period.

Next, the situation is undesirable and dangerous to the general public. The unlicensed vendors are not inspected for safety and hygiene by Food and Environmental Hygiene inspectors on a regular basis. An Internet user said that he and his girlfriend got diarrhea after eating there. Some of the unlicensed vendors used open fire from liquefied gas containers to barbeque meat and vegetables. An explosion from a gas leak would be disastrous in such a crowded area. Other unlicensed vendors used boiling soup on their carts, such as the curry sauce for the fish balls. If the cart gets tipped over, the boiling soup may land on passersby.

Next, an Internet user saw photography equipment being unloaded from a van. A woman with a backpack then came with a cart of fish balls to be filmed. Two foreign men then came with a cart with grilled barbequed meat. The two men clearly had never done this before. Both carts were spanking brand new. So the woman and the two men were most likely actors hired for the making of a documentary on The Fishball Revolution v. 2.0.

Next, the unlicensed vendors are far too orderly in the manner in which they spaced themselves out. A free market would require some time before the economic actors sort out their differences to achieve an equilibrium. Instead, everybody knew exactly where they were supposed to go. Clearly, everything was arranged by an invisible Black Hand. So which triad gang took charge here? Wo Shing Wo? 14K? or Sun Yee On? How much are they being paid per vendor?

Finally, late into the night, the unlicensed vendors packed up and depart, leaving behind mounds of garbage.

The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department hired several dozen cleaners to remove the garbage and clean up the streets. That was when the Siu Lai Cleaning Company team sent by Legislative Councilor Lau Siu-lai showed up and posed for the camera showing them cleaning the streets as if the FEHD never did anything.

(Video) Mong Kok street scene after the unlicensed vendors have left.

- (Oriental Daily) January 28, 2017.

At Siu Wai Wan, a stick of five fish balls cost $15 (or $3 per ball). At Chai Wan, a small bag of sausages, ox tongue and chicken cutlet cost $100. The consensus is that the price is exorbitantly high, given the small quantity and the undistinguished quality. Some of the vendors do not even have a price list: You ask them for the price and they will only say: "$100 for an assorted collection." But some consuers say that since this occurs only once a year, so they are willing to pay.

- Better than highway robbery? It is highway robbery!

- At first, it was reported that League of Social Democrats chairman Avery (The General) Ng had said up a stall under the overhead bridge in Sham Shui Po. But when he learned that the unlicensed vendors were able to set up in Mong Kok, he rushed over there.

(Oriental Daily) January 29, 2017.

The League of Social Democrats' cart was constructed by chairman Avery (The General) Ng himself. According to vice-chairman Raphael Wong, they are selling Happy Oden (Kanto-daki) food and he wishes everybody a happy year ahead. Wong disclosed that they began cooking the soup five days ago, so it is going to be dense and full-bodied.

According to a citizen who sampled the food, "Not much flavor," "the daikon was not sweet enough" and "the shrimp cake is not sweet enough."

- Fucking dickheads! The intention was never to serve good food to the People.

They were afraid that the FEHD/Police would crack down in Mong Kok, so they began operations in Sham Shui Po. After some pioneers took the risk and set up successfully in Mong Kok, they rushed down to reap the harvest.

When they got down there, there were dozens of League of Social Democrats members to look over this one cart. No other authentic vendor had such a stellar cast of public figures.

Then they called the media to come down and take photos/videos. After all, that was the main purpose of the entire project.

The reason for relaxing existing laws against unlicensed vendors during the Lunar New Year period was purely humanitarian. Poor people should be allowed to make some money during festive holidays.

Does Avery Ng look like he needs money? Why is he working a Oden-food cart wearing a light beige suit? The answer is obvious: He will look cool and handsome in the media photos.

Does Raphael Wong look like he needs to sell daikon to eke out a living? Does Tsang Kin-sing look like he needs to sell fish cakes to eke out a living? How much money are these LSD hacks going to make this night? 20 cents? 30 cents? Any money that they make is actually depriving some other truly indigent vendor! And did you know that they were charging HK$40 per order of their Oden food?

As I said before, Fucking dickheads!

- The government ran ads to tell people not to patronize unlicensed vendors because of the public health risks. Here is the reason -- ingesting cigarette ashes can be hazardous to your health!

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat WIng-yin. January 30, 2017.

On Lunar New Year's Day, I went by a certain public housing estate. A group of people were gathered around on an otherwise empty street. I walked up and saw that a grandmother-daughter team was selling Shumai. They were set up on a crudely constructed wooden cart; the shumai were placed on a square oil can. Hygiene was out of the question, and the food was undistinguished. But many people were buying.

There is a certain atmosphere around the Lunar New Year. One may not patronized itinerant vendors normally, but one makes an exception during the Lunar New Year period to help out others.

The shumai on the wooden cart was being sold at $1 apiece. The daughter sold the food while the grandmother collected the money. They were very polite: "Thanks a lot! We give you the best wishes for the new year. Please be careful because the food is hot. Have a nice day! ..."

It is a wonderful feeling to see an advanced city go back to the order and warmness of a rural village.

When my daughter was young, she asked: "Why are these vendors allowed to set up all over the street? Don't they worry about being arrested?" In primary school, she was taught that unlicensed vendors are breaking the law and that citizens should not patronize them. The exception made during the Lunar New Year taught my daughter that the law should be enforced in a humane manner.

Last year, the Localists started the Brick Riot by using the unlicensed vendors as their cause. From now than on, everybody is intimidated by the mere mention of "vendors". As soon as someone says, "I am a vendor" and "I am only trying to make a living," everybody backs off. Even the police have to provide protection for them.

Over the past few days, the section of Portland Street between Argyle Street and Shan Tung Street has been turned into a pedestrian walk. There are "I want genuine universal suffrage" flags all along the street.

What were the police doing? They blocked the street off with POLICE safety cones, and they protected the law-breaking vendors against any potential trouble.

Previously, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department recommended to the Mong Kok District Council to use MacPherson Field as a Snack Market during the Lunar New Year period. The District Council rejected the proposal because it implied too much noise and congestion to the residents. So now instead of a properly managed market, they want vendors all over the streets. The logic of politicians is always hard to fathom.

The itinerant vendors leave behind a pile of filthy garbage, puddles and stains. Who is going to clean it up? Who is paying for it? Are residents blocked from accessing their homes? What danger do the kerosene burners bring to the neighborhood? ... Does anyone care about these problems? Law, humane considerations, special privileges, politics ... our lines are increasingly fuzzy.

Have you seen this Priority Seat Hunter t-shirt around Hong Kong before?

(Wikipedia) Priority Seat

In Hong Kong, Priority seats were first introduced in the MTR in 2009 with the “Priority Seats Campaign”. The Smiley® World Characters, large red stickers with big smiley faces, were stuck on the top of the priority seats so as to attract people’s attention. After the setup of priority seats in MTR, bus companies started to follow. Priority seats were introduced to the Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) in May 2011, and then followed by Citybus and New World First Bus (NWFB) in June 2012. In accordance with the press releases, the KMB first introduced priority seats to 87 of their buses. In each bus, several priority seats were located at the front of the lower deck. The headrests of such seats are in green with words of “PRIORITY SEAT” and symbols of elderly, handicapped, pregnant women, and people with infants or young children to help passengers identify them. Advertisements were also broadcast in order to raise the awareness of passengers to offer seats. Receiving positive and supportive feedback after the 6-month trial, in the year 2012, the KMB decided to have priority seats set up in all of its buses and the headrests of such seats were changed into dark purple.

The tribe of Priority Seat Hunters represent a backlash against this sort of leftist retardism in society. Some young people of Hong Kong believe that they should have equal rights to all seats on public transportation. There is no reason why they should yield these seats to anyone else.

A Priority Seat Hunter is a young person who races to occupy a Priority Seat, even if there are empty non-priority seats available nearby. When asked to yield to persons with special needs, they will say: "Fuck your mother's stinking cunt!" and they will not move. They have little or no fear of physical violence because it is highly unlikely that the elderly, the disabled, the physically handicapped, the pregnant women or people carrying infants can beat them in a fist fight.

This is the beginning of a new Equal Civil Rights Movement™ in Hong Kong. Finally there is something that will make the young people of Hong Kong become famous all over the world as Global Leaders and Thinkers™!

- The sign only says "Please offer your seat to anyone in need." It is a request. You are not obliged to fulfill it.

By contrast, this NO SMOKING sign says that there is a HK$5000 penalty. They don't even bother to say "Please."

- I grew up in England, so I had some very British ideas about etiquette and manners. I am glad that you have straightened me out. The next time that I see a "Please Queue Up" sign in Hong Kong, I can just ignore it!


There is no reason to be herded around like animals as on this Windows 7 Charity Offer Day. When the gates open, you can just walk up to the top of the queue and elbow your way in. Might is right.

- (Video) It is not just about taking a Priority Seat for yourself. You also have the right to determine who can sit next to you. Here is a young man exercising that right. Seated next to him is a 3- or 4-year-old boy. Our young man minded very much because he wanted more space. So he bellowed at the 3-year-old saying "Stand up! If I touched you, you can report to the police. You stupid dick! Am I not allowed to move?" When the 3-year-old's grandpa demurred, the young man slugged the old man. This is the dawning of the era of the New Hong Kong Human Being.

- (Video) Last night on the 98A bus, a young man and a young woman occupied the priority seats. A grandma using a cane asked them to let her use the seat. They told her: "If you want a seat, you should take a taxi!" "We are all paying the same fare, so why should I yield my seat to you?" They kept cursing her out. So I took my mobile phone out to record their ugly action.

The two principals asked why they were being filmed. I said: "I am going to post this on Facebook and let the world know who you ugly people are." The young man replied in a mocking manner: "Yea, I am so fucking scared!"

The two principals have posted their version in a video in which they explained to the man who took the first video: We were not paying attention at first. That grandma sat down in the seat behind us and began to curse us while slapping the back of our seats. So that was when we told her to take a taxi if she wants to a seat.

- Lewis Loud Facebook

A grandma with mobility problems could not get a seat and a middle-aged Internet user cursed out a young couple for refusing to yield the priority seat. They said: "If you want a seat, you should take a taxi" and "I paid money too so why should I yield my seat?"

Without getting into the details of the case, such incidents will only continue to happen. This is not the first instance, and it won't be the last. Apart from the Epochal conflicts in Hong Kong being particularly serious, this is an unavoidable problem. You cannot not avoid this whether you are in Hong Kong Island, Kowloon or New Territories. The issue is very simple: Why are there so many fucking people in Hong Kong?

You can say that the young wastrels were deliberating causing trouble, or the old wastrels had bad attitudes. This is avoidable if there are fewer people in Hong Kong. If there are plenty of seats for everyone, we wouldn't need to quarrel. At the time when the future of Hong Kong was being negotiated, there were only three to four million people in Hong Kong. At the time, that was already too many. Now we have 7 million. Some bastard even said that Hong Kong needs 10 million people in order to have a future. This crazy bastard's friend now says that he wants to run for Chief Executive.

Seven million can fit in Hong Kong. But the traffic system, leisure facilities and community services cannot take care of everybody. It is very humiliating to live in a Hong Kong with seven million people. You have the money to take the bus, but you can't get a seat. You expect to have to stand, and you need to get into a fight if you want a seat whether you are a justice warrior or an old wastrel. This is the humiliation that we are all accustomed to. There are plenty of people in Japan too, but they cannot compare with Hong Kong. Apart from rush hour, there are always seats even in mega-cities such as Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya. Young people and old people do not have to fight for seats. I can sit in the priority seat while old people sit in ordinary seats. In Hong Kong? You can't get a seat no matter what time you get on.

At the time when Hong Kong was most inundated by the individual travelers, Hong Kong "received" one hundred million visitors each year, including more than 70 million mainlanders. During that period, the Hong Kong subway and other transportation systems were the battlegrounds for the two groups. You can say that establishing the priority seats intensified the conflict.

The American Edward T. Hall defined the notion of interpersonal distance as four groups: intimate distance is 0.5 meters or less; personal distance is 0.5 to 1.5 meters; social distance is 1.5 meters to 3 meters; public distance is 3 meters or more. If you keep letting strangers get inside your intimate zone, you may tolerate it once or twice but you become uneasy, irritable and combative over the long term because human psychology won't tolerate rubbing shoulders.

So the solution is that you either increase the number of seats or you reduce the number of people. Uneasiness and combativeness appear only because there is not enough resources. The precise reason is unimportant. Right now, the four Chief Executive candidates can talk about constitutional reform, August 31st resolution, the TSA test, etc. Whoever can make sure that people don't have to wait 10 trains before being able to get on at Admiralty should be made Chief Executive. Who cares about political issues as long as you can solve the problem of getting around town?

- How do you reduce the number of people in Hong Kong?

How about running extermination camps? You probably don't have the stomach for it, so that is not your Final Solution.

How about expelling all foreign-borns? According to the Census and Statistics Department, 35% of the population of Hong Kong is foreign-born (30% being born in mainland China, Macao and Taiwan). Getting rid of these foreigners means that there will be 35% less volume in all traffic (subway, buses, minibuses, trams, ferries, taxis, etc). You don't need any justification other than good old Sinophobia because the Americans, Europeans, Vietnamese, Indonesians do it all the time.

- Of course, this may be hard to carry out, as some well-known pro-democracy activists (Leung Kwok-hung, Claudia Mo Man-ching, Lee Cheuk-yan, etc), self-determination activists (Nathan Law Kwun-chung, etc) and pro-independence activists (Edward Leung Tin-kei, Cheng Kam-mun, etc) were born in China.

- Great idea! But wait ... it means having to expel my mother! My dad and my brothers are going to kill me if I say that I support this idea! Who is going to cook the meals and wash the laundry!? Hell, I surely won't. Never mind.

- All foreign-borns? That includes Americans, Brits, French, Aussies, Japanese, Indians, etc. And there goes the NED funding ...

- How does 20-year-old Joshua Wong tell an 85-year-old great grandma who was born in Guangzhou (China) and came to live here since one month old that he is more "Hong Kong" than her?

How about stopping all visitors from the outside? According to the Tourism Commission, the total number of visitor arrivals is about 60 million (not 100 million as Lewis Loud claimed), of which mainlanders account for 77%.

If the 60 million visitors stay an average of 3 days per person, that would be 180 million visitor-days per year. On the average day, that is 180 million / 365 days or about 500,000 visitors. So Hong Kong will only have to deal with 7.3 million residents but no longer the 500,000 visitors.

We must not forget that these visitors bring in HK$332.3 billion in expenditure. According to Reuters, the fiscal reserves is estimated to be HK$870 billion only. The government won't be able to pick up the whole tab. This means that sacrifices will be made. Better you than me, of course.

- Suppose you have 500,000 fewer people than before out of a population of 7.3 million. This is about 7% fewer. If you say that it took ten trains to go by before you were able to get on at Admiralty during rush hour, it will now take you nine trains.

To be able to get on at Admiralty without waiting at 6pm on a weekday, you need to reduce the population by 90%. And at 10pm, you will be the only person on the whole train. And that $10 MTR trip now from Admiralty to Tsim Sha Tsui will cost $100 in order for the MTR to break even.

- P.S. Those visitors are not just tourists. For example, they could be foreign business people. Are you going to tell Citibank/Bank of America/Goldman Sachs/Morgan Stanley/JP Morgan etc that their foreign employees will no longer be allowed to come to Hong Kong?

That is a rhetorical question and I don't expect you to answer. But I guess if Donald Trump can ban Muslims from entering the United States, then anything is possible.

- If you can't find a way of reducing the number of people, you have to increase the number of seats. 

The incident took place in a bus. So let us look at how to increase the number of bus seats. The largest bus company KMB (Kowloon Motor Bus) has a fleet of almost 3,800 buses with a workforce of 12,000. For example, we can quadruple the size of KMB, so that they have 16,000 buses operated by a workforce of 50,000. There will be buses every 3 minutes instead of every 12 minutes arriving at the bus stop. How wonderful!

Except that the price will quadruple as well. For example, it costs $9.80 to take the KMB #103 bus from Hong Kong Baptist University to Hong Kong University right now. It will cost $39.20 in future.

- Minor drawback: if you put another 12,000 buses on the road, this town will be a living traffic nightmare. Because of traffic congestion, the buses will not be evenly spaced out. Instead you go down to the bus stop and you will find ten #1A buses in a row, none of them moving because of the traffic congestion that began miles down the road. By that time, you will be demanding reducing the number of vehicles on the road ...

- This Lewis Loud guy is sneaky. He did not dare to say: "In the Japanese mega-cities such as Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya, there are always seats available" because Japan is world-famous for attendants pushing/shoving passengers onto trains during rush hour (video). So he added "Except for rush hour ..." in front.

But when it came to Hong Kong, he wrote about having to let ten trains go past before being able to get on at Admiralty station. But he neglects to add "During rush hour ..." If he goes there at 10pm, the trains are not crowded at all.

- "The American Edward T. Hall defined the notion of intimate distance as being 0.5 meters or less. If you keep letting strangers get inside your intimate zone, you become uneasy, irritable and combative over the long term because human psychology won't tolerate rubbing shoulders." Meanwhile at the June 4th candlelight vigil in Victoria Park, they are fitting 2.81 persons per square meter (HKU POP). No wonder those demonstrators want to fight with the police.

- This is typical Yellow Ribbon. It seizes on a problem and proposes a superficial solution which is a non sequitur that satisfies a different completely different agenda and which has foreseeable dire consequences.

For example, everybody knows that the top Chief Executive election issue is how to provide more housing for the 290,000 persons on the waiting list for public housing.  (YouTube) Roy Tam (Greensense) declared on RTHK: "If no demand is made to the Central Government to stop one-way visas (=mainland immigrants), then I am sorry to say that not a single inch of country park will be allowed to be used for housing."

- If (a) Hong Kong has too many people and not enough housing; and therefore (b) we shouldn't let more people come in, not even for family reunion (90% of the one-way-visa mainland immigrants come here for that reason), then the same logic applies to the families of all non-Hong Kong residents (such as those Yanks, Brits, Aussies, Japanese, French, Germans, Spaniards, etc working for international corporations in Hong Kong). This is a clean-cut case to file with the Equal Opportunities Commission. This means going back to the drawing board to find another reason to carry out the true agenda of barring mainlanders.

- Lewis Loud is pouring torrents of nonsensical words recently, probably because his ex-girlfriend Kelly Tse's announcement that she is dating a policeman:


Previously I actually did not want to be very public. But I know that my other half minds and wants to get my approval, so I have chosen to go public even though I know the consequences.
Actually it is a good thing to go public, because people won't have to hold mistaken expectations of me as a political activist. I have always fucking said that I ain't.
If you are not satisfied, you don't have to read my Facebook. I have never labeled myself as a Localist or otherwise gained from it. I have never done anything to get people to give me money. Therefore all my decisions now is right by me, and I don't have to be held accountable to anyone.

Comment: The reason why the Hong Kong Nation could not be built must surely be because of your dating preference.

- (Polymerhk) Three Rules of Discipline in the New Epochal Revolution

(A) Thou Shalt Not Yield Your Seat

The Hong Kong Communist government is introducing Priority Seats in the public transportation systems in order to foster the spirit of young people yielding seats to senior citizens, physically handicapped persons, pregnant women or people with small children.

This is wrong in our time of Epochal Revolution. In China, seniors trip and fall down on the ground and nobody helps them, ostensibly for fear of lawsuits. In truth, they are merely following the Survival of the Fittest rule of the jungle. If the senior citizens, physically handicapped persons, pregnant women or people with small children cannot take care of themselves, they should be taking taxis instead of public transportation. Every one of us must fight for our seats, the winner sitting down and the loser having to stand. This is the only way that China will be able to fend off the American imperialists.

Besides, senior citizens often criticize young people for not being to endure pain and suffering. This implies that the senior citizens can endure pain and suffering. So let them show us their endurance. After all, if we yield our seats to them, it may seem that we think that they have no endurance. We must not insult them in such a blatant manner.

Some young people deliberately hunt for the Priority Seats. I think that this is overdoing it. In my opinion, all seats are equal. I will take any seat I can find and refuse to yield under any circumstance.

(B) Thou Shalt Not Donate Blood

Periodically the Hong Kong Red Cross will ask the public to donate blood because the supplies are low. Normally that is a good thing for young people to do. But during a time of Epochal Revolution, this is a fucking rip-off. On the Internet, there are rumors that the Red Cross is handling over their blood to satisfy the needs of rich Chinese people (The Campaign To Stop Donating Blood/Organs). The Red Cross has issued denials. They say that most of the blood is used for Hong Kong patients in public hospitals, with 60% of it for senior citizens. When they say "most of", it means that "some of" the blood is going to the mainland. We cannot quantify what "most of" and "some of" mean, so we don't know what they are actually doing. But pursuant to (A) above, there is no reason for young people to donate blood to help seniors under the law of the jungle.

In any case, the fact is that the mainland Chinese people give blood only if they get paid. This is a market activity. You give blood and you get paid. So why is it that mainlanders get paid while Hongkongers have to do it for free? There is no justice.

(C) Thou Shalt Not Buy Charity Flags

On Saturday mornings, primary school children sell small flags for various charity organizations to help the needy. I used to believe that but I know now that this is all bullshit. For example, the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals is the best known of the charity organizations. But did you know that they are actually a big landlord with 110 properties around Hong Kong collecting HK$400 million in rent per year? Compared to that income, the amounts raised by flag-selling is less than peanuts. So this flag-selling business is a completely waste of time and money in this time of Epochal Revolution.

- (Headline Daily) April 28, 2017.

Recently an Internet user posed a photo onto Friends of Ma On Shan Facebook to denounce two female students for not yielding their priority seats to two 70-year-olds. Instead of a support campaign, strong objections appeared.

Some of the detractors said that the priority seats are not "senior citizen seats" and yielding a seat is a favor and not a duty.

Another Internet user claimed to be the mother of one of the two students wrote to say that it was wrong to post the raw photos of two students onto the Internet. "If you have to say something, you could have told them directly then and there." Other Internet users posted the personal photos of the instigator and demanded an open apology. So how are these people any different from the person that they are trying to criticize?

- (HK01) May 1, 2017.

Yesterday morning at around 730am, our reporter spotted a "Humiliation Seat" sticker in an MTR subway car. The design, color and logo are almost similar to the Priority Seat stickers except for the change in description. According to the MTR by-laws, any person posting unauthorized stickers, pamphlets, advertisements and other objects are subject to a maximum penalty of $5000 fine and/or 3 months in jail.

- (Oriental Daily) November 3, 2017.

Today a MTR passenger found that someone had written "Old Wastrel" next to the figure of a senior citizen. The passenger took a photo and wrote: "We all have to grow old some day. Why do we have to write this?" In the comments, another person wrote: "If people criticize the young wastrels all the time, then surely others can criticize old and middle-aged wastrels too."

Q1. What do you think is the single most essential quality of the next Chief Executive?
25%: Insist on "One Country Two Systems", "Hong Kong run by Hongkongers" and "High degree of autonomy"
19%: Trusted by the Central Government
16%: Promote social harmony
16%: Have an excellent governance team
10%: Honest and open-minded
8%: Relatively high public opinion support
3%: Clear ideas about running Hong Kong
2%: Other
1%: No opinion

Q2. Which do you think is the single most essential issue that the next Chief Executive must deal with?
35%: Relieve housing problems
18%: Stimulate Hong Kong economy
16%: Relieve the poverty problem
14%: Improve relationship between the executive and legislative branches
8%: Restart constitutional reform process
7%: Resolve mainland-Hong Kong conflicts
1%: Other
1%: No opinion

Q3. With respect to the 2017 Chief Executive election, which is fits your idea better?
52%: I want the person that I like most to win
40%: I want the person that I don't like most to lose
7%: Don't know/hard to say
1%: No opinion

Q4. Do you think that the pan-democrats should send a representative to run in the Chief Executive election?
48%: Yes
46%: No
4%: Don't know/hard to say
2%: No opinion

Q5. If the Chief Executive election were held tomorrow, who would you support?
30%: John Tsang
26%: Carrie Lam
16%: Jasper Tsang
6%: Regina Ip
5%: Woo Kwok-hing
4%: Others
13%: No opinion

(EJ Insight) November 4, 2016.

Financial Secretary John Tsang has the best chance of winning the Hong Kong chief executive election next year if he runs as widely expected, a survey shows. More than 28 percent of respondents said they support Tsang to become Hong Kong’s next leader.

Retired judge Woo Kwok-hing came in second with a support rate of 13.5 percent, followed by former Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Regina Ip, leader of the pro-Beijing New People’s Party. Only Woo has declared his candidacy.

The survey was commissioned by the Hong Kong Economic Journal and conducted by the Center for Communication and Public Opinion Survey of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK). It was carried out between Oct. 26 and Nov. 2 by phone, with 1,005 Cantonese-speaking respondents aged 18 and above.

(EJ Insight) December 19, 2016.

Financial Secretary John Tsang still leads the chief executive race if he runs as widely expected but Chief Secretary Carrie Lam is catching up fast thanks to Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying’s decision to drop out, a new survey shows.

The survey was commissioned by the Hong Kong Economic Journal and conducted by the Center for Communication and Public Opinion Survey of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK).

About 32.6 percent of respondents said they support Tsang to become Hong Kong’s next leader compared with 28.4 percent in a previous survey between Oct. 26 and Nov. 2. Lam had a support rate of 23.9 percent, up from 10.3 percent, beating retired judge Woo Kwok-hing and former Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang for second place. Woo came in third with a support rate of 11.4 percent. Jasper Tsang and Regina Ip, leader of the pro-Beijing New People’s Party, had less than 10 percent. 

The survey came after several new developments in the past 10 days. Leung said on Dec.9 that he would not not seek a second term, citing family reasons. The next day, Lam said she would “reconsider” her decision to retire in light of the new developments. On Dec. 12, John Tsang submitted his resignation, paving the way for him to join the race despite no clear signal from Beijing. Three days later, Ip officially launched her election campaign with the slogan “Win back Hong Kong”.

Lam may have benefited the most from the new developments, with the increase in her support mainly coming from the 9.5 percent held by Leung in an earlier poll, according to Francis Lee, a professor in CUHK’s School of Journalism and Communication.

The survey also found that one-half of the respondents who claimed to be in the pro-democracy camp support John Tsang while 49.4 percent of those from the pro-establishment camp support Lam. Among young respondents, Tsang beat Lam, 54.1 percent to 7.3 percent.

Asked who has the best chance of winning the election, 31.6 percent chose Tsang, followed by Lam (28.8 percent), far ahead of other competitors.

(EJ Insight) January 26, 2017.

John Tsang continues to be the top choice of Hongkongers in the chief executive race, but the former financial secretary has seen his lead over key rival Carrie Lam shrink significantly, a new survey shows.

According to a poll conducted by the Center for Communication and Public Opinion Survey of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), 33.5 percent of respondents said they want Tsang as Hong Kong’s next chief executive, while 30.9 percent said they back former chief secretary Lam. It marks a huge narrowing of the gap between the main contenders, as a previous survey last month showed the support levels of Tsang and Lam at 32.6 percent and 23.9 percent respectively. For the survey, CUHK researchers interviewed 1,036 people between Jan. 18 and 24.

The survey, the third of its kind commissioned by the Hong Kong Economic Journal, showed that retired judge Woo Kwok-hing — another candidate for the city’s top job — has seen his support rate drop to 8.1 percent from 11.4 percent. Meanwhile, former Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang and Regina Ip, leader of the pro-Beijing New People’s Party, were backed by 7.2 percent and 6.4 percent of the respondents respectively.

John Tsang and Lam have both seen their support rise since they announced their candidacy last week and they are extending lead over other candidates, but clearly Lam has become a much bigger threat for Tsang in the race for Hong Kong’s top post.

Asked who is likely to be the final winner in the CE election that will be held in March, 63.5 percent of the respondents chose Lam, significantly up from 28.8 percent in the previous survey. The corresponding figure for Tsang was only 17.4 percent, down significantly from 31.6 percent. As for Jasper Tsang, Ip and Woo, less than 5 percent of the respondents expressed optimism about their prospects.

(Hong Kong Free Press) January 27, 2017.

Chief executive contender Carrie Lam has said she was very late in launching her campaign, when asked why she appeared to have lower popularity ratings than rival John Tsang.

The two were the highest rated in a survey conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong and commissioned by the Hong Kong Economic Journal. Tsang enjoyed 33.5 per cent support and Lam received 30.9 per cent. However, in another survey question which asked for preferences if Tsang and Lam were the only candidates, Tsang received 48.7 per cent approval whilst Lam received 39.9 per cent.

Internet comments:

- WTF! How did this happen?

Who do the People want? 33.5% for John Tsang, 30.9% for Carrie Lam.
Who do the People think will win? 17.4% for John Tsang, 63.5% for Carrie Lam.

I know how to run the Blame Game: 28 pan-democratic legislators vetoed the constitutional reform bill in June 2015. Had that bill been passed, the Chief Executive will be voted upon by one-person-one-vote by the 3.3 million registered voters in Hong Kong this year. John Tsang would likely win.

By that veto, the Chief Executive will be voted upon by 1,200 electors from a small circle loaded with special interest groups. It is said that the pro-China camp has 800 of those votes. Carrie Lam becomes a shoo-in.

Why did the 28 pan-democratic legislators veto the bill? Because they promised that they will work immediately to get us an even better deal (one-person-one-vote with civil nomination of the candidates). But so far they have failed to make an inch of progress on that promise. Not an inch.

- The United States and the United Kingdom told the pan-democrats to take the original deal. But nah, they would not listen. So this is how we got here.

- It is not true that the pan-democrats are not making progress. According to Basic Law Article 159:

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress. 

 The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region. 

 Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views. 

 No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong. 

The pan-democrats are working hard on the key decision-makers.

With respect to the Chief Executive, the pan-democrats now control 325 votes out of 1194 votes of the election committee by infiltrating various sectors. The plan is to reach 400 votes by 2022, 500 votes by 2027 and 600 votes by 2032. And then we will be able to control the Chief Executive post.

With respect to the Legislative Council, the pan-democrats now control 27 seats out of 70. They plan to increase the number of seats by infiltrating the functional constituency. The goal is to reach 32 seats by 2020, 37 seats by 2024, 41 seats by 2028, 45 seats by 2032, 49 seats by 2036 and 53 seats by 2040. And then we will be able to have that 2/3 majority in the Legislative Council.

As for the National People's Congress, China will have melted down by 2040. There won't be any National People's Congress in China, and there won't be any Hong Kong deputies. Gordon Chang guarantees that this will happen (although there is some uncertainty about the timing).

So it is important to realize that we are fulfilling out a long-term strategic vision in which we will have genuine universal suffrage for the Chief Executive (and the Legislative Council) by year 2040. It is important to keep the faith and keep donating more money more frequently to those genuine pan-democrats (such as Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party, League of Social Democrats, Demosisto, Lau Siu-lai, etc) but not to the faux pan-democrats (such as Neo Democrats, Civic Passion, Hong Kong Indigenous, Youngspiration, etc).

(HKG Pao) January 25, 2017.

At the Legislative Council meeting yesterday afternoon, the police was asked if they have learned from the Mong Kok riot last year to increase police deployment in order to prevent a recurrence.

Commissioner of Police Steven Lo Wai-chung said: "We will analyze intelligence on the Internet about people who want to demonstrate openly or cause trouble. We will make a risk assessment and then deploy accordingly."

So if you get on the Internet now, what will you find? Oh, yes, there is a big battle going on ... fire is being exchanged so rapidly that if you sleep early tonight, you may be able to follow the story when you wake up in the morning.

(Wen Wei Po) January 25, 2017.

It all began with Yau Wai-ching (Youngspiration) shared a Facebook post by a person named Matthew Lam:

Matthew Lam's Facebook


The Lunar New Year Fair stall is open!
Please come to Stall #174 at Sha Tsui Road, Tsuen Wan district to support!
There is also Pepe's hoodie too!

In the middle of the accompanying photo, there is a black t-shirt with the words "Only We Are The People of Hong Kong."

Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) also offered a "Praise". An Internet user named "Dai Cing" commented: "Even if the Food and Environmental Department won't approve (Youngspiration's stall at the Lunar New Year Fair), it does not mean that your merchandise cannot be sold elsewhere."

This seems to imply that the black t-shirt came from Youngspiration.

The Civic Passion-friendly Facebook user Chau Yau Luan wrote: "The Hong Kong Indigenous product for the Lunar New Year is plagiarized from Wan Chin. The t-shirt slogan was plagiarized from Wan Chin's slogan: 'In this world, only we are the people of Hong Kong."

The immediate response from pro-Youngspiration KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) was that Youngspiration had never seen the original Wan Chin quote. This was all a lucky coincidence. Something about great minds think alike.

Really? Wan Chin responded with an obscene curse and brought back the history. On March 7, 2015, Wan Chin posted on his Facebook: "In this world only we are the people of Hong Kong."

On July 10, 2016, Youngspiration posted themselves "In this world, only we are the people of Hong Kong" in quotes and the hashtag #credit_MasterWanChin?

So how can Youngspiration say that they never saw Wan Chin's original saying? Wan Chin said: "If you are not a political ally, you should not be using Wan Chin's quotation. There is still ethics in politics. These fucking bastards are fucking shameless." Wan Chin also posted t-shirts that the Hong Kong Resurgence Order sold in 2014. The design is different, but the slogan was "In this world only we are the people of Hong Kong." Wan Chin said that this is the original version.

Civic Passion's ex-leader Wong Yeung-tat then said on his Internet program that "Youngspiration plagiarizes policies and slogans. They even sell t-shirts." Wong said that even the traditional pan-democrats steals his slogans (such as "I am a Hongkonger" and "Localism") and the citizens buy those products. Wong said: "This proves that the people of Hong Kong have not wised up yet."

Internet user Marco Chan said that "Youngspiration plagiarized Wan Chin's famous quote to sell t-shirts to make money. They did not acknowledge the source. Such plagiarism is shameful!" Internet user Teddy Chun said: "Youngspiration/Hong Kong Indigenous are a bunch of morally decadent and shameless gamblers. These fake independence advocates lied to get our votes and abandoned the supporters afterwards. They are opportunists who have no genuine political beliefs. Right now they are pretending that they are City-State supporters? They are political parasites."

Next the Youngspiration's KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) said that Youngspiration added a comma after "In this world" so this is not a literal copy. To this Wan Chin replied: "The insertion of the comma created a pause and therefore destroyed the certainty in my original sentence." Now someone has made a t-shirt with "Only we are the people of Hong Kong" without "In this world." That is even worse because it sounds like you are arguing with someone. My original sentence was meant in sorrow for myself.

Yau Wai-ching responded to Wong Yeung-tat by saying that Matthew Lam's t-shirt is not a Youngspiration product. She said: "Why don't you produce the entire list so that everybody can see what was plagiarized. There is no need to talk further. I might as well as say that I plagiarized you by breathing the air."

Pro-Youngspiration KOL Lewis Loud posted that the "Only we are the people of Hong Kong" t-shirts were offered by Matthew Lam, who is in no way connected to Youngspiration whatsoever. Nobody from Matthew Lam's group is a Youngspiration member/volunteer. Shortly afterwards Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) shared the Lewis Loud's post, and gave no sign that Wong or Hong Kong Indigenous knows Matthew Lam either.

OH PLEASE!!! Matthew Lam is a host on an Internet program on Channel I, founded by Ray Wong and Edward Leung. It is stone cold to cut Lam off as if he was an alien from Mars. But, of course, Lewis Loud was very careful and said very correctly that Matthew Lam is not a Youngspiration member/volunteer, and Ray Wong shared without commenting.

Is Youngspiration the same as Hong Kong Indigenous? Of course not. They are two different organizations with different sets of people. However, when Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous) was barred from running in the Legco elections, he told his supporters to vote for his Plan B: Youngspiration. He said that the voters can do so confidently because he assures them that the two organizations are "99% alike."

- Loki Tham's Facebook


Hi, Yau Wai-ching wanted us to prepare a list of their plagiarisms versus original creations. So here we go:
(1) Re-fucking of Shina (original creation)
(2) The fucking Ap Lei Chau accent defense (original creation)
(3) "Zero cost + lots of fun" eventually costing several million dollars which they want others to pay for (original creation)
(4) Bring up the rear but left by taxi (original creation)
(5) I hate pan-democrats before the election, but I want to cooperate with them after I screwed up (original creation)

- Hey, if you create a line of t-shirts with these slogans, nobody can possibly charge you with plagiarism. What you did was so asinine that no sane person can dream it up.

- Donald_Trump Facebook

Youngspiration has always been a market-oriented organization
Plagiarism is its policy platform
They will copy whatever is selling hot.

At first, they saw that there was a market for Yellow Ribbon Umbrella Soldiers (2015)-> So they entered the District Council elections as Umbrella Soldiers
Next they saw that there was a market for Localism (beginning of 2016)-> So they said that they are Localists (although they have never taken part in any Localist actions)
Next they saw that there was no market for the referendum advocated by Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order (March 2016)-> So they pilloried the idea of referenda
Next they saw that there was a market growing for the referendum advocated by Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order (March-May 2016)-> So they advocated the referendum, even saying that there should be an electronic referendum in five years' time
Next they saw that there was a market for self-determination-> So they said that they were for self-determination.
Next they saw that there was a market for Hong Kong independence-> So they abandoned self-determination for Hong Kong independence
Next they saw the self-determination advocates win big in the Legco election-> So they abandoned Hong Kong independence for self-determination
Next they saw that their own pseudo-independence movement has been devastated-> So they are heading straight back into the arms of the pan-democrats

Conclusion: Youngspiration has always been a market-driven political party. They will want a share of anything good.
It is nothing for them to copy a slogan for a t-shirt.
It would be against their principles not to do so.

Do you think that they can spare the time to start the Epochal Revolution?

- Lewis Loud Facebook

Right now those followers of evil cults are spinning that Matthew Lam has a program on Channel i and therefore he is with Hong Kong Indigenous, therefore he is with Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration, therefore he is with Youngspiration.

Passion Times program hosts are not necessary Civic Passion members
Channel i program hosts are always Hong Kong Indigenous members?

How do you move the goal posts around?  Let me meekly ask: Didn't you start with accusing Youngspiration with plagiarism?

If you made a mistake in cursing people, you made a mistake. If you like, you can curse Local Study Society. But the problem here is that you made a mistake over the t-shirt issue. You are saying that the Local Study Society people are with Hong Kong Indigenous in order to be consistent with your stupid initial deduction. A person who has taught for decades obviously won't acknowledge his mistakes.

The ultimate point is that the stall was rented for the sake of Ng Lai-ying and Kwong Chun-lung. According to the logic of the Hot Dogs (=Civic Passion) and Wan Chin, they must be Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration in order to match their previous assumption that "Those Youngspiration bastards plagiarized my sound bite."

Wan Chin: Sorry, I was wrong. Virtuous kidney brother is right.
Ray Wong: I am laughing

- Here is how to dig an even deeper hole to bury yourself in.

At first, Youngspiration was selling a t-shirt that plagiarized Wan Chin's "Only we are the people of Hong Kong" at the Hang Seng Business School Local Study Society stall. They said that this t-shirt was designed by Youngspiration and friends. They emphasized that they have the real thing. This roused public rage because people knew where the source of the quotation.

To defuse the bomb, Lewis Loud posted several thousand words on behalf of Youngspiration. He said that Youngspiration has nothing whatsoever to do with the stall. He made it out as if the stall operator Matthew Lam had popped out of a rock somewhere. Within moments, people uncovered the fact that Matthew Law is a program host with Channel i, which is owned and operated by Hong Kong Indigenous.

After foundering around, Lewis Loud has now come out and accused the critics of being followers of evil cults. He even trotted out a statement of apology from a fake Wan Chin Facebook account. Unfortunately, there was a typographic error as the honorific "Virtuous brother" became "Kidney brother." This will only make sure that his name will hereafter be "Kidney brother Lewis Loud."

As always with the Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders), they will act dumb and deaf when it comes to the inanities of Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration. If pressed hard, they will say that it is important to be fair, balanced and objective in front of the facts and only the facts. If not all the facts are known, then no conclusion can be made. Next, they will sneakily share other people's posts that make silly excuses for Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration. If exposed, they will switch the subject to the paramount importance of unity and the immediate cessation of hostilities within the Localist movement.

Why do these people act this way? Because they know that their supporters suffer from amnesia and must rely on the KOLs to tell them what to think and say. Fraudsters can't make a living unless there are plenty of suckers out there! And a group of fraudsters and amnesiacs should not be telling us what the future should be.

(Wen Wei Po) January 26, 2017.

At 10pm or so yesterday, a citizen went to the Lunar New Year Fair in Victoria Park. As he walked past Great George Street in Causeway Bay district, he spotted a red/black poster. The citizen said: "The poster was eye-catching. Apart from the big letters 'Take back the Lunar New Year', it said 'Lunar New Year eve 11pm' underneath and a black banner above saying 'Lunar New Year Fair entrance.'"

He said that although he was perplexed, he did not pay too much attention. He continued to walk around Victoria Park. Half an hour later, he left via the Causeway Road exit. He spotted a middle-aged woman affixing the same poster on the concrete post. "The woman wore a mask and she worked quickly. As soon as she affixed the poster, she left. There were no policemen or security guards around. I went over to look. Indeed it said 'Take back the Lunar New Year'."

The citizen said that the poster reminded him of the Mong Kok riot last year on Lunar New Year's Day. He got scared and got the police. "If someone tries to cause trouble at the Lunar New Year fair, it will put the children and senior citizens in danger. These troublemakers are ruthless!"

A number of police officer arrived quickly and canvassed passersby and business operators. According to information, there are at least 6 such posters around the Lunar New Year Fair in Victoria Park.

- Valiant Frontier Facebook

To all those locals (that is, Hongkongers), when you go to the Lunar New Year Fair at Victoria Park tomorrow,
remember to bring surgical mask (the air is polluted)
bring a hat (be careful about bird droppings)
bring a change of clothing (you may sweat in crowded conditions and your clothes will get wet)
do not bring your Octopus card (it will be a waste of time to report a loss of property if you drop it)
do not bring any banned items (such as nail clippers, long umbrellas, flintstones, etc)
everywhere else you can improvise at the scene
there won't be any help hotline, so you can call the Civil Affairs Bureau which is in charge
use the red flower as the sign
at 815pm, a cup with be thrown as the sign
the crazy shopping spree begins!

The Valiant Frontier is a bit-player in the game with not more than 5 members. For example, they sponsored the Occupy Yuen Long show (#171 and #168) and dispersed on their own when they saw the heavy police presence. They are making this Facebook post now to make a splash about themselves.

- Even if we don't show up, we will have succeeded. The purpose of every single resistance effort is ultimately to increase the cost of governance. By posting a few words on the Internet, more than 1,500 Hong Kong police officers were placed in standby. Therefore we have achieved yet another major victory on the road of Epochal Revolution.

- You fucking bastards! The police overtime is paid for by the taxpayers! The money could be better used than fattening a bunch of police officers with overtime pay. For the police, the standby time was "zero cost, lots of fun as they party, sing karaoke, eat food and watch television in the station house, so why not?"

(SCMP) Anson Chan’s invitation to Trump inauguration is more about ego than substance. By Alex Lo. January 13, 2017.

Anson Chan Fang On-sang is not Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. So our former chief secretary’s invitation to attend Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington isn’t as heart-stopping for Beijing as Tsai’s congratulatory phone call with the US president-elect or his alarming take on America’s “one-China” policy.

Does her invitation signal a policy change in Washington when it comes to Hong Kong? Or is it just one of Trump’s typical flip-flops because he neither knows nor cares much about the city’s politics within the overall Sino-US relations?

Most likely it’s the latter. Trump has been having a blossoming bromance with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. Russia’s democratic development is not something that particularly interests or worries him. And while he and key members of his incoming cabinet have been critical of China, it has to do almost exclusively with currency, trade and maritime conflicts in the South China Sea. Given Barack Obama’s lukewarm interest in Hong Kong politics, it’s even harder to imagine Trump to show any interest in that direction at all.

So what to make of Chan’s visit to Washington? It’s quite an ego trip for this prima donna of Hong Kong politics. In a normal world, someone with her background would be there to promote Hong Kong and the country as a whole. There isn’t a more important geopolitical and economic relation in the 21st century than that between China and the US. But given the narrow egocentricity of the city’s pan-democrats, Chan will do no such thing – rather the opposite.

The trip is a big deal for Chan, though, who is now 76. She has friends in high places within the Republican Party.

“They know my past experience,” she said, “What values I stand for, my public service record, and support the work I am doing. So in their words, the move is their way of honouring my legacy.”

It’s not clear what legacy is being referred to. The disastrous opening of the then new airport in Chek Lap Kok when she was chief secretary? Or her failed power struggle within the first post-1997 administration in which she was sidelined? That paved her way to joining the pan-democratic camp. That is, perhaps, a legacy of sorts for this “conscience of Hong Kong”.

(SCMP) Anson Chan hard to Trump on double standards with US visit. By Michael Chugani. January 17, 2017.

If you’re wondering how best to define double standards, think of former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang. This self-proclaimed champion of democracy is in the United States capital waiting to attend president-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on Friday. Trump? Democracy? Isn’t it immoral to mention the two words in the same breath? If there’s one American president who doesn’t exemplify democracy, it’s Trump.

The man is a bigot, bully and misogynist who called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers, accused a judge of being biased because he is Mexican, proposed a ban on Muslims entering the country, refused to condemn the Ku Klux Klan, ridiculed a disabled reporter, claimed Barack Obama wasn’t born in America, and admitted to sexually groping women. Yet Chan swoons over being invited to his inauguration by Republican Party buddies.

Our very own conscience of Hong Kong – a label awarded her by the Western media – sees no qualms with being associated with this future president. She gushed with pride when explaining why she was invited: to celebrate the values she stands for. I am not sure what her values are but she doesn’t seem to mind having them celebrated by a bigot.

Top performers, including Elton John and Andrea Bocelli, have refused to perform at Trump’s inauguration. A fast-growing number of Democrat lawmakers are boycotting the event after he savaged a respected civil rights leader who fought alongside Martin Luther King. People who believe in democratic values, racial equality and religious freedom are repulsed by Trump’s sexual comments about women and are staying away.

But Chan boycotting the event? No way. Our champion of democracy is too star-struck to do that. This may seem personal but it is not, although Chan has never refrained from being personal in attacking her political foes. I have lost count of the times she mocked Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying. And just recently she accused outgoing chief secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor of obeying orders with her decision to build a Hong Kong version of Beijing’s Palace Museum.

Chan’s pan-democrat buddies routinely boycott Leung’s events. But compared to Trump, Leung is a saint. Compared to Chan, Lam is an angel. One of Chan’s favourite lines is that we should speak truth to power. She no longer has any power although when she did she was not known for championing democracy. And that is the truth.

(Hong Kong Free Press) Has Hong Kong lost its conscience? The shunning of a pro-democracy icon: Anson Chan. By Kent Ewing. January 23, 2017.

Back in the city’s early heady and hopeful post-handover days, when Anson Chan Fang On-sang spoke, people listened. Then serving as chief secretary, she came to represent the core values—free speech, clean government, democratic development and the rule of law—on which the city should never compromise under the “one country, two systems” arrangement with the mainland.

When her boss, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa, showed clear signs of hedging on those values, the two clashed and Chan would then resign in 2001, citing “personal reasons,” well before the end of her term. But she would continue to speak out for those core values and become one of the city’s leading figures in its painful quest for greater democracy.

It was Chan who came out of retirement in 2007 to throttle the comeback dreams of Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, the once-despised secretary of security who had failed in her strident efforts to ram anti-subversion legislation down the throats of the Hong Kong people. In a Legislative Council by-election widely perceived as a battle for Hong Kong’s soul, Chan won decisively over Ip, and it seemed the forces of light had prevailed.

But now look at our city. The ever-resilient lp finally managed to win a LegCo seat and, over the past eight years, her hard work and dogged commitment have made her one of the council’s most popular lawmakers. She has also been appointed to the Executive Council and is now a chief executive candidate.

Meanwhile, Chan, now 77, has been reduced to a voice in the wilderness—that same wilderness occupied by Martin Lee Chu-ming and other formerly iconic but now ageing Hong Kong pro-democracy leaders—bordering on irrelevant to the rough-and-tumble of the city’s current political battles.

With the launch in 2013 of her think tank, Hong Kong 2020, Chan tried to remain in the mix of Hong Kong affairs. But today’s younger generation, even if they recognise who she is, regard her as a relic of the past, and the Beijing-fearing media blast every effort she makes to uphold free speech and advance the cause of democracy.

Chan has long stood squarely in the firing line of Beijing mouthpieces such as Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po, but you know times have changed when columnists in the city’s leading English-language publication, the South China Morning Post, now owned by Chinese Internet giant Alibaba, start unloading on a public figure who not so long ago was hailed in its pages as one of the most able and trustworthy officials in the Hong Kong government.

According to the SCMP’s Alex Lo, Chan is now the “prima donna of Hong Kong politics” whose invitation to attend US President Donald J. Trump’s inauguration last Friday amounted to nothing more than an “ego trip” for the woman once dubbed “Hong Kong’s conscience.” Lo went on to sum up Chan’s political legacy—quite unfairly—as a “failed power struggle within the first post-1997 administration in which she was sidelined.”

As if Lo’s column was not enough of a hatchet job, less than a week later another of the newspaper’s columnists, Michael Chugani, launched an even more one-sided and churlish attack on Chan, denouncing her for the “double standards” he claimed she displayed in making a trip to the US capital to attend the inauguration of a president who is “a bigot, bully and misogynist”—abhorrent qualities that he implied she was endorsing by her very presence.

If Chan truly believed in democracy, Chugani unreasonably suggested, then—like some pop stars and opportunistic US Democrats using the event to score partisan political points on the very first day of a new administration—she, too, would have boycotted Trump’s inauguration.

Not only was Chugani’s fusillade mean-spirited, it was also wilfully purblind to Chan’s purpose in going to Washington—which was obviously to say and do all she could to nudge the new Republican administration and congress into putting more pressure on Beijing to live up to the principles stated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration that paved the way for the city’s 1997 handover from British to Chinese rule.

Trump’s personal flaws notwithstanding, he is now the 45th US president and, prior to his inauguration, made it abundantly clear that he thinks Sino-US relations are due for a shakeup, even questioning the one-China policy that the US has maintained toward Taiwan for nearly four decades. To have his ear and/or the ear of his advisers and congressional Republicans for even a moment was surely worth the trip to Washington.

Indeed, it would have been foolish of Chan to turn down such an opportunity. This is not the time for Hong Kong democrats to join the anti-Trump parade.

Of course, that’s not the way Chan’s Washington sojourn is being portrayed in today’s conscienceless Hong Kong, where democracy is more of a game than a goal and the double-barrelled “one country, two systems” mantra has lately been reduced to single-shot nationalism.

The trashing of Anson Chan is just another reminder of this sad truth.

Internet comments:

- Susanna Chui-yung Cheung's Facebook

 

Shame on you, Anson Chan Fang On-sang! You are not someone like Tsai Ing-wen who has to shine the shoes of the American president because she has an official government job. What did you have to go to Washington DC to attend the inauguration ceremony of a President who discriminates against women, vulnerable groups and colored peoples? Why do you ignore the demonstration marches of American women and other women all around the world against this newly elected American president?

Anson, you regularly promoted core values such as human rights, freedom and democracy. But you stood behind Trump to greet people. This has completely revealed your true face.

The conscience of Hong Kong? Are you qualified? Don't you feel ashamed and embarrassed? As a Hong Kong woman, I will stand up and say NO to you! What about the rest? How do you see it? What do you think?

- If you go to Donald Trump and ask for a favor (namely, please pay some attention to the plight of democracy in Hong Kong), you cannot be so rude as to criticize Donald Trump for tweeting things like:

What good is a democratic Hong Kong when its shores come under the rising tide from the melted Artic icecaps?

- (Oriental Daily) January 9, 2017. Anson Chan proudly announced to the media that she has been invited by American president-elect Donald Trump to attend the inauguration ceremony in Washington DC. She said that "she is very delighted." But this Democracy Grandma who has been embracing Universal Values seemed to be oblivious of the fact that Trump has been hit with wave after wave of scandals, such as barging into the women's dressing rooms to watch them change clothes; engaging in sexual harassment; threatening his rentiers; hiring illegal aliens as workers; etc. Democracy Grandma said that she would be delighted to debrief the incoming government about the situation in Hong Kong and ask them to support democracy, freedom and rule-of-law in Hong Kong.

Late last year, Democracy Grandma traveled to Australia and New Zealand to ask those governments to intercede in Hong Kong's internal politics. When she arrived in New Zealand, government officials refused to meet with her. In 2014, she went to the United Kingdom but Prime Minister David Cameron refused to meet with her. She said that the United Kingdom should not sacrifice the interests of Hong Kong just because they want closer ties with China in trade, culture, etc.

- Some famous examples of traitors: Puyi, Wang Jingwei, Pierre Laval, Vidkun Quisling, etc.

- (SCMP) Hong Kong is solely China’s policy, according to what Theresa May told Donald Trump. By Michael Chugani. January 31, 2017.

It is imperative that the United States remove the Statue of Liberty until such time as Donald Trump is either impeached as president or dumped at the next election.

For over a century the statue has shone as a towering beacon of everything that is good about the country. It is the soul of America. There can be no greater insult to this icon than to have it standing while the morally corrupt Trump is president.

As a loyal American, it distresses me to say my president is a disgrace to the office he holds. I never thought the day would come when the country founded on equality would deport or incarcerate people solely for their religion or place of origin.

Not only must the liberty goddess go, the State Department’s annual report that attacks countries for human rights abuses must go too. The Trump administration has no moral authority to criticise world behaviour.

Morality is clearly not a trait of British Prime Minister Theresa May, who behaved like Trump’s lapdog by refusing to join world leaders in condemning his Muslim ban. Her exact words were: “The United States is responsible for United States policy on refugees. The UK is responsible for UK policy on refugees.”

That astonishing statement is a blank cheque for every country to do as it pleases. China is responsible for its policy on Hong Kong. Former governor Chris Patten, please shut up. North Korea is responsible for its nuclear policy. The US, Japan, and South Korea must accept that. Burma is responsible for its human rights record. No one must interfere.

I can’t help wondering if former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang has buyer’s remorse. Didn’t she gush with pride after Republican Party buddies invited her to Trump’s inauguration? She even hoped to discuss Hong Kong with the president. She has been mute since the inauguration. Sorry, Mrs Chan, but Hong Kong is China’s business. The British prime minister in essence said that.

And what about self-proclaimed democracy crusaders such as Joshua Wong Chi-fung, who make regular pilgrimages to the US to seek support for their cause? Will they still want democratic help from an administration led by a bigot and a self-confessed sexual groper who has now imposed a religious test on people entering the country? Just wondering.

- The Hong Kong pro-independence/self-determination crowd always says: Hong Kong affairs should be dealt with by Hongkongers, therefore China must butt out. Why? Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES. Then they rush over to the United States/United Kingdom/Australia/New Zealand/Japan/Taiwan to ask those foreign governments to intervene on their behalf. Why? Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES.

Is this a contradiction? A case of split personality? Of course not. Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES. In the United States/United Kingdom/Australia/New Zealand/Japan/Taiwan, they have FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES whereas in China they don't have FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES.

Are you skeptical about the validity of this argument? Then you hate FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES and you should move back to China where you belong.

- (HuffPost) February 2, 2017. The Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was widely criticised for being one of the few western leaders to not publicly oppose Trump's travel restrictions on those Middle Eastern countries.

While Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau none-too-subtly tweeted "Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength", British Prime Minister Theresa May's office said "we do not agree with this kind of approach" and leaders from Scotland, Sweden, Germany and France spoke of their disapproval, Turnbull stayed silent.

"I am not about to run a commentary on other countries' practices," Turnbull said when asked for his response to the executive order. "It's not my job as Prime Minister of Australia to run a commentary on the domestic policies of other countries."

- (The Guardian) October 13, 2016.

The prominent Hong Kong democracy activists Martin Lee and Anson Chan have urged the Turnbull government to stand up to China publicly over the deteriorating state of civic freedoms, warning there has been a progressive diminution of the “one country, two systems” policy.

Lee, the founding chairman of Hong Kong’s democratic party, and Chan, a former chief secretary in both the British colonial government of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong special administrative region government under the Chinese sovereignty, made the appeal at the National Press Club on Thursday after a meeting with Australia’s foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop. Lee said he would like governments, including the Australian government, “to voice its concerns publicly as well as in private”.

You can meet with Australian politicians as often as you like, but they won't say a word on your behalf. Why? Because it is not their job to run a commentary on the domestic policies of other countries. Capisce?

- (Wen Wei Po) In Hong Kong, it is the customary to describe those remnants of the British colonial administration as "old worn-out batteries." This means that there people have no energy left to give although they still maintain an exterior façade. Anson Chan is an old worn-out battery. Not only that, but the exterior casing is showing cracks and the electrolytes are seeping out already. If she does not get discarded and buried deep underground in a landfill immediately, she will pollute the political environment of Hong Kong.

- If Wang Dan can accept US$200,000 from Chen Shui-bian,
  If Neville Chamberlain get reach a deal with Adolf Hitler in Munich,
  If Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho can share the Nobel Peace Prize,
  If Donald Rumsfeld can shake hands with Saddam Hussein,
  If Martin Lee can consort with the late Senator Jesse Helms,

then surely Anson Chan can hang around with Donald Trump
just as pigs can fly ...

- (Ta Kung Pao) February 1, 2017.

For the longest time, the pan-democrats look up to America. The major reason was obviously the financial aid flowing from the National Endowment for Democracy. The so-called American ideology was also important. When it comes to freedom and democracy, American is the beacon. Our pan-democrats groveled to meet with important American political figures and get their photos taken for media publicity.

Since assuming the presidency on January 20, Donald Trump has done at number of things that drew fierce international criticisms. Three things should be highlighted. Firstly, Trump claimed that his inauguration drew the largest audience in history. When presented with the facts, Trump preferred "alt-facts" and threatened the media. Secondly, Trump signed an executive order that prohibited citizens from seven Middle East countries plus all refugees from entering the United States. Thirdly, he fired the Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out his order.

These issues all involve the "highest principles" of freedom and democracy that the Hong Kong pan-democrats cherish. When these "highest principles" are being ripped up by Donald Trump, the hypocritical masks of the Hong Kong pan-democrats are also being ripped apart. In the future, when we speak of democracy, nobody will think that American democracy is a model to follow; when we speak of human rights, nobody will think that America is better than China; when it comes to freedom, America and the rise of ultra-rightists in Europe show that things are not what they seem anymore.

When Trump hollered at the American media, the Hong Kong Journalists Association refused to issue a single word of condemnation; when Trump issues executive orders that violate civil rights, the Civic Party barristers refused to utter a single "No"; when Trump signs a series of outrageous executive orders, the Hong Kong political commentators became deaf, dumb and blind; instead thousands of words are devoted to the man-eating Ningbo tiger and the Chinese psyche.

- (EJ Insight) Trump gives China more reason to fear full-scale democracy in HK. By Michael Chugani. February 7, 2017.

... While Trump’s victory has very little, if any, political significance for Hong Kong, although it has great significance for China, it will still have opened Beijing’s eyes wider on how unpredictable so-called genuine democracy can be. Will the central government want unrestrained democracy in Hong Kong? What if such a system produces a separatist as chief executive or someone who can be manipulated to let Hong Kong become a base to undermine China? These scenarios may seem preposterous to Hong Kong people but they are very real concerns for China.

Trump became president through democracy but it took him just a few weeks in office to tarnish democracy’s good name. He has given ample reasons for China to fear even more about full-scale democracy in Hong Kong. And he has given ammunition to those who argue that in today’s world, democracy doesn’t solve but create problems, holds back progress, and is not the best form of government compared to others as Churchill claimed.

Hong Kong’s democracy camp has always relied on the US to champion its cause. People such as former chief secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang, Martin Lee Chu-ming, and Joshua Wong Chi-fung have often made pilgrimages to the US for support in their fight for democracy. Anson Chan even gushed about being invited by the Republican Party to Trump’s inauguration.

Now that the US is governed by Trump – who has shown himself to be an authoritarian, bigot, bully, and misogynist – can Hong Kong’s democracy advocates, who say they oppose China’s authoritarian rule, consider it morally right to seek US support for their cause?

The peril of democracy is that there is no guarantee only morally upright people will be elected. The built-in safeguard is that voters can throw out people like Trump at the next election if they choose to. But that is cold comfort because demagogues can do a lot of damage while in office.

Will Trump’s bizarre presidency make Hong Kong people think twice about their yearning for democracy?

- Hong Kong National Party grovels to The Donald:

- The Hong Kong National party wrote that the politicization of the business environment is "evidenced by our first-hand experience: we have not so far been able to register as a Hong Kong legal entity with our name, and our short-term tenancy for Lunar New Year market stall has been unilaterally cancelled by the government for the sole reason that the products to be sold may contain certain political messages."

The Companies Registry rejected the application because the entity Hong Kong National Party espouses Hong Kong independence in contravention of Basic Law Article 1: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." There is nothing to stop Chan Ho-tin and his buddies to meet as the Hong Kong National Party. The problem is that they want to register as a company that can do business legally when their purpose is against the law. Do you think that the the Puerto Rican Independence Party can get listed for NASDAQ trading?

The cancellation of the Lunar New Year market stall was made on the basis of public safety. For example, look what happened to Nathan Law and Joshua Wong in A Tale of Two Cities. The Lunar New Year market is very crowded at time, including many children and senior citizens. If a fight breaks out between the Hong Kong National Party and its opponents, there can be a stampede. For example, do you think that the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade should feature an Adolf Hitler balloon in the name of freedom of expression?

Donald Trump is a businessman made famous by the book Trump: The Art of the Deal which is summarized in 11 steps:

  1. Think big
  2. Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
  3. Maximize your options
  4. Know your market
  5. Use your leverage
  6. Enhance your location
  7. Get the word out
  8. Fight back
  9. Deliver the goods
  10. Contain the costs
  11. Have fun

The Hong Kong National Party letter is written by some pseudo-intellectual egghead who uses language that must be completely foreign to Trump. For example, Trump is going to rip this letter up as soon as he gets to the start of the second paragraph: "Having the only common-law financial hub in East Asia trapped under China's colonial sovereignty is against the interest of the United States." Trump does not care about any imagined difference between common-law and civil-law. More countries in the world follow civil law than common law, including Brazil, China, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Spain and Switzerland.

In order to pitch Trump, you need to list for his benefit just what are the downsides and upsides of Hong Kong independence. Given the size of the Hong Kong economy relative to that of China, there is no upside and plenty of downsides.

Reference: New York Times Donald Trump Soured on a Deal, and Hong Kong Partners Became Litigants. May 30, 2016.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) February 9, 2017.

President Donald Trump has sent a letter to Chinese President Xi Jinping on the heels of his remarks about Taiwan that angered Beijing. In his missive, which thanked Xi for his “congratulatory letter” about his inauguration, Trump said he “looks forward to working with President Xi to develop a constructive relationship that benefits both the United States and China,” spokesman Sean Spicer said in a statement.

The note appeared to be an effort to get on better footing after the US leader, during the transition period that followed his election and preceded his inauguration, enraged China by suggesting US policy toward Taiwan might not remain unchanged. Just after he won the November election, Trump provoked Beijing’s ire by accepting a congratulatory call from Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen.

- The fact that President Donald Trump spoke to Tsai Ing-wen by phone and only wrote a letter to Xi Jinping is an obvious insult directed at Xi Jinping. We look forward to President Trump taking strong actions against China in the very near future.

- After watching the Trump presidential campaign for more than a year, the only thing that is certain is that Trump has no principles on anything.

- (SCMP) February 10, 2017.

US President Donald Trump has reaffirmed the one-China policy in his first phone call with China’s President Xi Jinping after taking office.

In the Friday morning call that was not announced beforehand, Trump told Xi that he fully respected the importance of the one-China policy and that his administration would adhere to it, the state-run China Central Television reported.

Trump made the pledge at Xi’s request, according to the White House. “The two leaders discussed numerous topics and President Trump agreed, at the request of President Xi, to honour our one-China policy,” the White House said in a statement.

Friday morning’s call was the first between the two leaders since Trump was sworn in as US president in late January. The call marked a major shift in Sino-US relations, which entered into a period of greater uncertainty after Trump took office.

Xi was quoted by state television as saying he appreciated Trump’s reiteration of the one-China policy and hoped to work with his US counterpart to promote the steady development of bilateral ties.

Both leaders also agreed to keep close communications, state television reported. The White House described the call as "extremely cordial” and the two leaders also extended invitations to meet in their respective countries.

- The shards from the shattered glass hearts of pro-independence Hongkongers are scattered all over the floor ...

(Ming Pao) January 24, 2017.

The government characterized the police-civilian clash during Lunar New Year's Day last year as a 'riot' which caused many injuries. Ming Pao interviewed Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) and he re-iterated that "the original intention was to protect the vendors, but the police mismanaged the situation and caused a huge clash." He said: "We did not plan it. It was a sudden explosion."

Ray Wong said that the huge clash was the acme of Localism. But at the same time, it led to the government oppressing Localism during the Legco elections and the oath ceremony. One year later today, the Localists and the pro-independence elements have gone from strength to weakness. Wong admitted that he had been young and overbearing, making too many enemies. When others needed help, Wong was less than forthcoming. Whereas he criticized the pan-democrats before, he now says that he must mend the relations with the non-establishment camp, including the pan-democrats. "When we share the same position, we can have a certain degree of cooperation." He hopes that both sides will spend less time criticizing each other.

Ray Wong said that Hong Kong Indigenous rose up rapidly after the Lunar New Year clash. "We got many more supporters." During February and March last year, they received a lot of public opinion support. Some of that support became their votes in the New Territories East Legislative Council by-election. But in the September Legislative Council elections, Edward Leung was ousted by the government. After the election, the two Youngspiration legislators were caught in the oath of office imbroglio. All this led Localism into the abyss.

How many supporters does Hong Kong Indigenous left? Ray Wong said that he does not know, but he knows that those left are the most hard-core supporters. Have the Localists become rats scurrying across the street? Ray Wong said: "I don't feel so. It isn't that bad. When I walk down the street, nobody is scolding me."

Ray Wong said that they learned about the weakness of the Localists only after the establishment counter-attacked. In the past, they depended too much on Internet mobilization and lacked mass support. Their propaganda methods were exclusionary in nature, and they were inexperienced in dealing with political struggles and internal conflicts. Ray Wong said that he saw during the Basic Law Interpretation episode that public opinion is easily influenced and he has to think about adjusting the propaganda to be directed at the people.

The Basic Law Interpretation episode caused Ray Wong to want to re-examine their relationship with the pan-democrats. "We have reflected on whether we are too hostile and opposed to the pan-democrats. He said that the pan-democratic parties and the localists were opposed to the Basic Law Interpretation." But why didn't the pan-democrats support Youngspiration to fight the case in court?" Ray Wong said that the pan-democrats and Hong Kong Indigenous have completely different political beliefs and methods of resistance. Previously Hong Kong Indigenous vigorously criticized the pan-democrats. Under such circumstances, "Where is the room for co-operation?" Ray Wong said that the difference in opinions is merely a struggle over the future path of Hong Kong. All sides can still divide the labor, with the pan-democrats focusing on economic and livelihood issues , the self-determination camp focusing on referenda to determine the future of Hong Kong and the localists focusing on identity.

When asked about apologizing to the pan-democrats, Ray Wong said: "No." He said that there is no point in being obsessed with the past.

(SCMP) January 28, 2017.

Mong Kok might have regained a sense of calm a year after violence swept through the retail hub on the first night of Lunar New Year, but key figures of the unrest are still bearing scars of the overnight chaos that lasted more than 10 hours. “You could say we were like a raging fire being put out very quickly,” said Ray Wong Toi-yeung, the leader of the localist group Hong Kong Indigenous who was accused of instigating the Mong Kok riot last February. “We do not have the power to start any social movements at this point as many core members are facing charges.”

Having been charged with one count of rioting, Wong, 23, could not comment further on what happened a year ago. But he said many supporters had turned away from him and that his group had since reflected on its actions. “The main reason (for losing supporters) is that we often misjudged situations and lacked experience,” he said. “We must take responsibility for that.”

Wong described the party as experiencing a “time out” after raising its local stature, no more evident than when localist Edward Leung Tin-kei, 25, stunned pundits and politicians by garnering 15.4 per cent of votes cast in the Legislative Council by-election for the New Territories East constituency just three weeks after the riot.

Wong blamed the government’s aggressive political attacks for curtailing support for his group, claiming his voice was not heard in mainstream media. “You can see how the government attacked us by disqualifying Leung from the Legislative Council elections,” he said. “We often have no chance to dismiss negative reports against us.”

He added that he and his members would engage in more community work to win back supporters and wait for the right moment to initiate social movements again.

Internet comments:

- Chiu the Dragon Facebook:


The complete list of lies from Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration
[It is not the first time that they lied, and it won't be the last time]
- When Youngspiration was formed, they said that they were Occupy/Umbrella soldiers. But nobody has ever seen them before.
- Yau Wai-ching explained at a forum that because they were rookies, nobody remembers them. After the Umbrella Revolution, she was photographed as helping someone hit by pepper spray to wash out the eyes.
- Edward Leung said at a by-election forum that this is a "resistance with no red lines" but now he says that he has a "red line" (=not having to go to jail).
- Before the by-election, Edward Leung said that "he really hates the pan-democrats" and that "he really appreciates Raymond Wong Yuk-man (Proletariat Political Institute)."
- When he was canvassing for votes, he said: "I am offering my life to the fight." After he returned to Hong Kong, he said that he was afraid of dying."
- Edward Leung said: "If one day I am no longer myself, you should just topple me."
- After being accused of forsaking Localists in order to get close to leftist retards, Ray Wong promised that he will not do so in the future. But today, Ray Wong said that he is going to cooperate with the pan-democrats because he needs resources.
- After Hong Kong Indigenous got disqualified from the Legco elections, they told their supporters to vote for Youngspiration because the two organizations are 99% alike.
- "Edward Leung Tin-kei" = "Baggio Sixtus Leung Chung-hang". That may just be true if the measure is the degree of despicability.
- Edward Leung told supporters to transfer their votes to Youngspiration and he promised that he will monitor what Youngspiration does during the elections.
- Wong Chun-kit released false information to Local Press
- Leung Chung-hang denied that they used obscene language during their oaths of office. He said that "People's Re-fucking of Shina" came out like this merely due to his Ap Lei Chau accent.
- Ray Wong said that there was zero cost to having fun (with the oath of office), so why not?
- Yau Wai-ching lied by publicly thanking Raymond Yuk-man for telling voters to vote for her instead.
- Leung Chung-hang mobilized the masses to start the battle at the China Liaison Office and then quickly left by taxi.
[continuously updated]

- Ray Wong must be on drugs? Here is a list of landmark clichés from the history of Hong Kong Indigenous:


Ray Wong: When is the Epochal Revolution taking place?
    SH Tam: Soon
Ray Wong: Zero cost. A lot of fun. Why not do it?
Ray Wong: Traitor.
    Crane Liu: Traitor. Article 23 legislation. The Junggar Desert needs you to plant trees for labor reform
Ray Wong: Eating Hot Dogs (Civic Passion) again?
Ray Wong: What about the 100 Viagra pills?
Ray Wong: And the $530,000 in cash?
Ray Wong: Where is Watermelon Kei?
    Edward Leung: What do you want me for?
Ray Wong: May the Heavens strike down all you traitors!

- Chau Yau Luan's Facebook

|
Ray Wong said that nobody is helping the Localists? Is that true?
After Lunar New Year last year, the Localist camp was united in an unprecedented way to support Edward Leung, who ultimately received 60,000 votes in the New Territories East Legco by-election. Leung declared boldly that the world is now divided into the pro-establishment, pan-democratic and localist camps.
Six months later in the September Legco elections, Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration joined together to attack Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order with smears and rumors. After Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching won, they were high-spirited and demanded Cheng Chung-tai to give up his idea of a permanent continuation of the Basic Law.
After storm over the oaths of office, Leung and Yau lost their seats and the entire Localist camp was forsaken by public opinion.
Now Ray Wong comes out and says that nobody is helping them, and they want to surrender to the pan-democrats in order to beg for a few crumbs to eat?
Fuck your mother, Ray Wong Edward Leung Leung Chung-hang Yau Wai-ching. You are just a bunch of Secondary School Form Two sick groupie kids who spout Hong Kong independence talk.

- (HKG Pao) March 20, 2017.

In a interview, former Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union president Ernie Chow declared that the "valiant resistance" has fallen into dogmatism. Therefore, he has recently been looking at other directions for long-term development. He emphasized that one must not charge blindly because the sacrifice is not worthwhile in the face of the severe penalties.

However, Chow gave a perfect display of verbal "valiant resistance" -- he said that if valiant resistance is needed at a later date, the Localists will mount the front lines again and make the necessary sacrifices. Who is going to decide on when that moment is here? Himself, of course. So as long as he keeps saying that "the moment is not right yet," he won't have to make any sacrifice!

The Localists have always criticized the Peace/Reason/Non-violence/Non-obscene-language approach of the traditional pan-democrats. So why are they doing the same now? Chow explained that they are not imitating the traditional pan-democrats. He explained that the Localists' Peace/Reason/Non-violence/Non-obscene-language approach is designed to bring about real change, whereas the Peace/Reason/Non-violence/Non-obscene-language approach of the traditional pan-democrats is a waste of time. What does that mean? We little people don't understand.


John Tsang: Recuperate/Recover/Rehabilitate/Heal refers to the cessation of infighting. If infighting continues, governance will be stalled and the competitiveness of Hong Kong will be affected. In truth, all political camps are tired of the enmity and rifts over the past few years. Only a few extremists are still glad about doing it. Faced with this situation, we should let society recuperate/recover/heal. This is not only the desire of the majority of the people of Hong Kong. It is also the way for Hong Kong to continue to move forward.

The big question is: Who are the few extremists that John Tsang is talking about? Why are they so keen on promoting infighting?

Here is a good candidate:

(League of Social Democrats) January 19, 2017.

Four Crimes of John Tsang

Crime #1: He is a miser who wants to hoard the money in order to benefit the investors

He would rather benefit the hedge fund investors than the grassroots and the senior citizens. He spend $219.7 billion to establish a Future Foundation and inject 23%-33% from the budget surplus each year into this Foundation. This money cannot be touched before 2025. Hereafter, its use is unspecified. The Future Foundation is invested with the Long-term Increase Group of the Foreign Exchange Reserves, including investments in private stock equities and overseas properties. Returns on investment are put back into the Foreign Exchange Reserves. John Tsang has locked the money down in order to create a fiscal crisis. People are starving and freezing to death by the roadside, but our Secretary for Finance won't release one cent!

Crime #2: You always agree with your boss.

John Tsang: "If we can seize this opportunity (One Road One Belt), the development of Hong Kong over the next 30 years, even 50 years, will have a backing." (According to the One Road One Belt Office commissioner, scholars have said that the results won't be realized until 30 years later)

In Hong Kong, the corporate and personal taxes are the lowest in the world. But our Secretary for Finance insisted on keeping the tax system and maintain the low tax rate.

Crime #3: Trust in the market and let housing prices soar

Cheung Bing-leung said: "As for the number of residential property transactions involving double stamp duty, they have increased by 50% for August/September 2016 compared to last year. The 2,600 transactions in September was a new record high, being 29% of all residential property transactions. In October, the 2,100 transactions were 28% of all residential property transactions. Between March-October, the housing price indicator rose up by 11.9%, for mostly small- and medium-sized units."

The price of land kept rising. Chinese-capital corporations are speculating on land. At Kai Tak, the price of land was $13,000 per square foot. This is even more expensive than the price of an apartment in the same district. That is, the flour is even more expensive than the bread now. For the first half of October, there were 130 transactions of amounts more than $30 million. According to the developers, 30% of the buyers were mainlanders.

The Government's 3rd Quarter Economic Report: "In September 2016, the overall housing prices are 71% more than the peak period in 1997. The purchasing power of the citizens (that is, the mortgage payment for a 45 square meter apart unit compared to the medium household income (which includes public housing households) has risen to 59% in the third quarter of this year. This is far higher than the long-term 6% between 1996 and 2015. If the interest rate were to rise to the normal 3%, the purchasing power of the citizens would soar to 77%."

Crime #4: Egocentricism, unable to regard the Citizen as his Boss.

He decided to stop paying interest. In the 2015 budget, our Secretary for Finance deleted the interest income from the Hong Kong International Airport (which averaged $5 billion over the past five years). He bypassed the checks and balance of the Legislative Council, and willfully went ahead to build the third runway for the airport. In so doing, the government forsook the income and the citizens will be paying for the construction fee for this "Great White Elephant" project.

- A brief introduction: (Wikipedia) The League of Social Democrats (Chinese: 社會民主連線; LSD) is a social democratic political party in Hong Kong established in 2006.

What do they want?

(Wikipedia) Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, and regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions.

Specifically, the current demands of the Hong Kong League of Social Democrats include:

  • Genuine universal suffrage for Chief Executive in the form of one-person-one-vote with civil nomination
  • Genuine universal suffrage for Legislative Council in the form of one-person-one-vote with civil nomination, with the elimination of the Functional Constituency
  • Stop government-business collusion
  • A universal retirement protection scheme in which all persons above retirement age will received the same retirement amount coming from the Foreign Exchange Reserves
  • Cash handouts to all citizens coming from the persistent budget surpluses
  • Increasing the minimum hourly wage
  • Capping the maximum number of working hours per week
  • ...

What do they do to get what they want?

(Wikipedia) Members of the party pioneered the use of theatrics and disruptive tactics in Hong Kong. Heckling and the throwing of projectiles have since become a frequent occurrence at Legislative Council and public meetings. Their members have been ejected from Legislative Council meetings on numerous occasions.

(League of Social Democrats) Our organization emphasizes that "change does not fall down from the heavens because it can only come through continual resistance/struggle." We advocate "resistance all the way inside and outside the Legislative Council." In the streets, our members practice civil disobedience. Over the years, we have the highest number of people arrested and prosecuted among all political parties in Hong Kong. Inside the Legislative Council, our representative Leung Kwok-hung actively filibuster on behalf of the masses to stop unjust expenditures.

John Tsang had a previous encounter with the League of Social Democrats:

(SCMP) December 8, 2013. Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah was hit on the head by an egg thrown by a protester attending a government forum yesterday. "Luckily I'm not wearing a good suit today," Tsang fired back at the audience at the forum in North Point. In fact, he was dressed in a tracksuit. He added that he appeared to have foreseen the incident.

The police arrested two men, aged 24 and 25, on suspicion of common assault and disorderly conduct. One was believed to have thrown eggs and another a doll. Neither is thought to have thrown the egg that hit Tsang. "Our one demand is that there should be public nomination in the chief executive election," one protester, surnamed Chan, told the media before being arrested. It is understood that both Chan and the other man held are members of the League of Social Democrats. They were last night being held at North Point police station.

(SCMP) November 7, 2014. Defending himself, Chan said that he had been throwing eggs onto the stage without aiming at anyone in particular. Citing Japanese novelist Haruki Murakami, he said that eggs represented people who fought against their government. "Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg," Murakami once said. Chan said that it was common for protesters to throw eggs at politicians in foreign countries, and such an act was not an attack but rather a way to express a view.

(SCMP) November 29, 2014. A radical pro-democracy activist was sentenced to three weeks in jail yesterday for throwing an egg at Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah at a political forum as part of a protest last year.

(SCMP) May 20, 2015. Derek Chan Tak-cheung, secretary general of the radical League of Social Democrats, who threw eggs at Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah at a political forum in North Point vowed to continue demonstrating on behalf of the underprivileged after he finished a three-week jail term yesterday. "I met old people in jail who had committed petty crimes to get by, such as stealing minor stuff at the supermarket," he said. "If I have learned anything from the experience, it is how the government is sitting on billions of surplus while the poor and old are out on the street worrying about their livelihood."

John Tsang can bring the League of Social Democrats to the table for his Grand Unity/Reconciliation/Healing if he has concrete proposals on universal suffrage, universal retirement protection, etc. I look for the day when John Tsang and Leung Kwok-hung hold up their hands up high to celebrate their accord on how to stop government-business collusion!

- On the core issues of the League of Social Democrats (e.g. universal retirement protection, constitutional reform, etc), John Tsang holds the position that they are controversial and cause deep social rifts. But deferment is not a neutral act, because it means that the status quo will continue. So John Tsang and the League of Social Democrats have irreconcilable differences.

- Recently the minimum wage was increased from $32.50 to $34.50. The League of Social Democrats considers that to be woefully inadequate. But if you raise it to $38.50 like the labor side wants, you will find that the labor side will demand $44.50 next (to keep up with inflation blah blah blah). How are you going to reach an agreement with someone who practices confrontational politics?  If you yield an inch, he is going to push for another inch. This is never ever going to end. It is called Permanent Revolution.

- The Social Democratic theory is that a country must go through two distinct revolutions. The first is the Bourgeois Democratic Revolution which socialists would assist. However, this revolution will be incomplete because the bourgeoisie by its nature is incapable of instituting full political democracy and solving the land ownership issue. The second is the Socialist Revolution in which the revolution will be completed by a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

So there is not a snowball's chance in hell that the League of Social Democrats will stop with "genuine universal suffrage" in the form of one-person-one-vote with civil nomination. If and when they get there, they will carry out Dictatorship of the Proletariat. If you ask them right now, they will deny it because such an agenda is taboo in capitalist Hong Kong at this moment. Their immediate task right now is to make things so bad that the masses will eventually come to accept this agenda. Good luck, John Tsang!

- (Sing Tao) February 8, 2017.

When John Tsang went to visit at Shue Yan University, several students greeted him with "I want civil nomination" and "I don't want small-circle elections." They chanted "I don't want the August 31st framework" and then they left on their own. If John Tsang went there to communicate, those students were not interested.

#001. (Oriental Daily with video) January 21, 2017.

Yesterday Carrie Lam was leaving her election campaign office in the Wanchai Convention Centre as reporters ran after her. She came down the escalator. At the bottom of the escalator, a male cameraman rammed a camera at her left arm and left breast with force. She cried out "Waaahhh!" and her expression immediately darkened. A security guard separated the two. Carrie Lam walked quickly towards her van.

- Carrie Lam is unfit to become Chief Executive because she was so rude to the reporters. She answered just a couple of questions. She did not stay and patiently answer all of their questions. And she left in a hurry, forcing them to chase after her. After the physical contact, her expression darkened and she did not apologize to the reporter. The People of Hong Kong do not want such a bad-mannered woman as their Chief Executive.

- Indeed, we expect that the Hong Kong Journalists Association will be coming out with a statement to condemn Carrie Lam for being unfit to become Chief Executive. All journalists must be treated with the utmost respect, and she has failed miserably here just as she had throughout her entire life.

- Spoof:

The Hong Kong Journalists Association strongly condemns the violence
Carrie Lam assaulted a reporter who was gathering news
She has committed an egregious violation of the freedom of press
She disregarded the personal safety of the reporter
And used her chest to assault the photography equipment
She owed an apology
But she left wordless with a dark expression
All rights to seek redress for the damage to the equipment and the injury of the reporter are reserved.

- It would be sexist to say that Carrie Lam is a woman and therefore she is emotionally unstable. But her Emotional Quotient as shown in this case is extremely questionable.

- From the logo on the camera, the male reporter is from NOW TV. This is a pro-Occupy Central Yellow Ribbon media outlet. He was probably under orders to create a physical clash. He rammed his camera at full-speed at Carrie Lam in front of the other cameramen in order to make her look bad. He made sure to look at the on.tv camera and gave his most evil grin.

NOW TV is owned and operated by Richard Li whose father is Li Ka-shing. The Li family stands to gain most from a Second Coming of Property Hegemony as practiced under the regime of Donald Tsang/John Tsang, whereas they were put under clamps under CY Leung/Carrie Lam.

- This is a smear job on the professional journalists at NOW TV, which created the extensive series abut Property Hegemony (YouTube, with English sub-titles).

- The Gospel of Matthew:

5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth
5:39 But I saw unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Carrie Lam failed to let the NOW TV cameraman hit her on the right side as well. She is Roman Catholic but she failed to act in accordance with the Gospel of Matthew. No Christian can possibly vote for her!

#002. (Apple Daily with video) January 21, 2017.

After her announcement to run for Chief Executive, Carrie Lam has been putting public appearances to be closer to the people. Yesterday she gave up her chauffeur-serviced automobile to try the MTR subway. Lam was clearly not familiar with riding the subway. She did not even know how to use the Octopus card. She stood in front of the entrance and looked at the gate. She clearly did not know what to do. Her assistant told her "It's alright. You can proceed" and then she went through the gate.

At the new Lei Tung Station, she shook hands with citizens. She met with citizens and shook hands. She spotted the words "Wong Chuk Hang station" on the wall. So she thought that she was in the Wong Chuk Hang station. She said to the citizen: "New station? Wong Chuk Hang." The citizen corrected erh: "No. It's Lei Tung."

- (Wikepedia) Carrie Lam

Born to a low-income family of Zhoushan ancestry in Hong Kong, Lam was the fourth of five children. Lam grew up in Wan Chai. She completed her primary and secondary education at St. Francis' Canossian College, a neighborhood Catholic girls' school. Despite being raised in a tong lau subdivided flat, which only allowed Lam to do her homework on a bunk bed, she still managed to always rank first in class and even became the Head Girl.

With a privileged background such as this, Carrie Lam clearly has no idea what regular folks have to deal with. It would be immoral for her to become Chief Executive.

By contrast, the highly popular John Tsang could only afford to attend the working-class LaSalle College located in the middle of the slums of Kowloon Tong. When the old school building was falling apart, it was Li Ka-shing's Cheung Kong Holdings which helped to build a new school out of the kindness of Li's heart.

- You bastard! You lie like a rug! Knowing that LaSalle College desperately needed  a new school building, Cheung Kong Holdings swapped LaSalle College's land along Boundary Street for the construction of a new school building. On that most lucrative parcel of land, Cheung Kong Holdings built its Beverly Villas and made a ton of money. Out of the kindness of Li Ka-shing's heart? And pigs will fly. Suce mes couilles!

- (The Standard) May 3, 2016. Lam recalled that one of the most memorable lows for her was placing fourth in class for a mid- term examination. That was the one and only one time in her 13 years at St Francis' Canossian School and St Francis' Canossian College when she failed to come in top of the class. She cried when went back to home, as she was worried about how the teachers and relatives looked at her. Asked for her reaction. Lam said: "I took the No1 place back."

This sort of obsessive compulsion to come first is psychopathological. The fact of life is that we cannot all be Number One at the same time. There is only one Number One, but does that make the rest of us losers? No, because we the majority in a democracy can make you suffer if we so wish! So just shut up and sit down, okay!?

By contrast, John Tsang has said that he never finishes first. That is why John Tsang is the People's Choice now. Down with Carrie Lam! Death to Carrie Lam!

- The Apple Daily video shows clearly that Carrie Lam was completely at a loss at the gate (0:41 into the video). If there should be a terrorist attack in Hong Kong, is she going to freeze like this? Can she be put in charge of our personal safety? Obviously not!

- John Tsang should use this video to make an attack ad against Carrie Lam. She was so pathetic! See for yourself!

- (Apple Daily) This episode is nowhere as pathetic as when Carrie Lam went to attend the funeral of Hong Kong singer Barbara Fei. Her chauffeured car took her to the Hong Kong Funeral Home in North Point, Hong Kong Island. She entered, came back out shortly, got back into the car and went to the Universal Funeral Parlour in Hung Hom, Kowloon. She had gone to the wrong funeral home! Hong Kong cannot afford to have Carrie Lam as its Chief Executive!

- This was the first day without her government assistant and she was foundering already. Her former assistant will probably be a better Chief Executive than her.

- (Oriental Daily) February 9, 2017. John Tsang went to attend a meeting with the Liberal Party at the Legislative Council building. Visitors are required to register, but John Tsang forgot to bring his Hong Kong ID. Eventually a worker from John Tsang's campaign office brought the ID over so that John Tsang can enter the building. This was not the first time that John Tsang forgot to carry his ID. Previously in November 2014, John Tsang forgot to bring his ID while testifying in a court trial.

- Under the CAP 115 Immigration Ordinance article Section 17C (1)

(1) Every person who- (a) has attained the age of 15 years; and (b) (i) is the holder of an identity card or is required to apply to be registered under the Registration of Persons Ordinance (Cap 177); or (ii) is the holder of a Vietnamese refugee card, shall have with him at all times proof of his identity.

The maximum fine is HK$5,000.

Since John Tsang was making $320,000+ per month before, he can easily afford to pay $5,000.

#003. (Bastille Post) January 21, 2016. Yesterday Carrie Lam met with senior media executives. She was asked what was the worst outcome in the Chief Executive election. She said that the worst case is when a person was elected and the Central Government refuses to appoint that person. That would be an international scandal as well as constitutional crisis. She said that she has entered the election in order to stop this from happening. She did not identify the person(s) or reason(s).

- According to Article 45 of the Basic Law: "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government." This means that once a person wins the local election, he/she must be appointed by the Central People's Government. It is all written down in black-and-white. Carrie Lam is lying as usual!

- (Apple Daily) Chief Executive Woo Kwok Hing accused Carrie Lam of "firing an arrow behind the back from inside a black box." As such, Lam needs to explain to the public and the other candidates the basis of her statement. If she cannot give a credible explanation, then "it will lessen confidence in the election as well as the Central Government." Woo also called on those senior media executives who attended the meeting to tell us what happened because the public interest is involved.

- (Apple Daily) Carrie Lam's campaign office said that Lam was only worried about "just in case." As such, she was not referring to any specific individual.

This explanation, like everything else that Carrie Lam has done over her entire life, is woefully inadequate. There are only four persons who have declared so far: Carrie Lam, John Tsang, Regina Ip and Woo Kwok Hing. Carrie Lam has to tell us which of these people will not be appointed by the Central Government and for what reasons. We the People of Hong Kong demand this.

- (Oriental Daily) January 25, 2017. Neo Democrats convener Yam Kai-pong and Sai Kung district councilor Gary Fan Kwok-wai went down to the Independent Commission Against Corruption to denounce Carrie Lam for violating the Election Ordinance through her statements to the media tycoons. Yam also demanded that all attendees must tell just exactly what Carrie Lam said during the meeting because the public has the right and the need to know what transpired in this closed-door meeting.

- (EJ Insight) January 25, 2017.

Chief executive hopeful Woo Kwok-hing may file a complaint with the Electoral Affairs Commission over remarks made by former chief secretary Carrie Lam, an election rival, RTHK reports.

Lam had been quoted as saying at a closed-door meeting that she decided to join the race to prevent a “worst-case scenario” where the central government refuses to appoint an election winner who is not acceptable to it, which in turn could trigger a constitutional crisis. She later denied that her remarks were aimed at her rivals, saying she had simply made a factual comment because the Basic Law does stipulate that Beijing has the final say on whether to appoint the candidate selected by the 1,200-strong Election Committee.

But Woo, a retired judge and a former chairman of the commission, said Lam’s remarks could have breached the relevant election ordinance and he may file a complaint with the commission if there was sufficient evidence.

Woo also called on those who were present at the meeting to make public what Lam had said. “It’s difficult for the time being to decide what was the truth. If the 20-odd media tycoons who had been in the meeting with her were to divulge what they’ve heard, then the case may be different. We may have sufficient evidence to see one way or the other clearly,” he said. “And that would be the basis for deciding whether a complaint should be laid and whether she should be prosecuted, whether she has committed a crime,” Woo said.

- Carrie Lam needs to be jailed immediately. The evidence is so clear that a trial won't even be necessary. Besides Judge Woo has already pronounced sentence.

#004. (The Stand News) January 21, 2017.

Today Sing Pao published an editorial to point out that Carrie Lam's family was focused on England until the opportunity came for her to run for Chief Executive. Her husband went to teach mathematics at the Beijing Normal University; her 25-year-old son graduated in mathematics from Cambridge University in 2010 and came back to Hong Kong in 2013 to intern at Chow Tai Took and another investment company with mainland background. So why would Carrie Lam give up her plans to retire to England?  After all, her family has right of abode in the United Kingdom. And what has she really done for Hong Kong? How can the Central Government possibly trust Carrie Lam?

Meanwhile John Tsang is completely different. At age 14, he immigrated to New York City (USA) with his parents and three siblings. He lived on 8th Street in Lowest East Side and attended Stuyvesant High School. He has degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston State College and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. John Tsang was naturalized as a United States citizen but renounced American citizenship in 1998. His wife, his son and his daughter are still American citizens. In 1982 at age 31, he returned to Hong Kong and served in various positions in the British colonial administration, including a two-year stint as Private Secretary to the Governor Chris Patten. After the 1997 handover, John Tsang continued to serve the People, including stints as the director of the Office of the Chief Executive as well as the Financial Secretary under his dearest friend Donald Tsang. As such, John Tsang is "red and expert" and the Central Government can fully trust him to be loyal to the People's Republic of China/Chinese Communist Party.

- As the most trusted Hong Kong media outlet of Xi Jinping, Sing Pao has once again hit the truth on the nail. Only Sing Pao tells it like it is.

- If the Chinese Communist Party cannot trust the Private Secretary of Lord Chris Patten , who can they trust? After all, they branded Patten "a sinner for a thousand years", but the Jade Emperor has still not struck Patten down with lightning. This means that Patten was right and therefore his Private Secretary can do no wrong.

#005. (Bastille Post) January 22, 2017.

Carrie Lam told reporters that she had moved out the Chief Secretary's residence into a rented apartment near her campaign office. She moved late at night. By midnight, she found out that there was no toilet paper at the new apartment. So she went downstairs to buy toilet paper at the convenience store. To her surprise, she found out that the convenience stores do not sell toilet paper.

What is to be done? She took a taxi in the middle of the night to fetch toilet paper from the Chief Secretary's residence that she had just moved out of. Carrie Lam said that she shared this story with the reporters because too many things have been happening and she needs time to adjust.

- If she can't even clean her ass, she is definitely not fit to become Chief Executive.

- This major event was reported by Juliana Liu on BBC, January 23, 2017. Run out of toilet paper? Most of us would solve the problem with a quick trip to the shops. But in Hong Kong, politician Carrie Lam took a taxi to her former official residence in the city's exclusive Peak district to fetch more rolls. She shared the details of her loo paper adventure to reporters over the weekend, instantly making her a laughing stock on social media. "I'm laughing so hard, I'm on the floor," a user called Robhimx wrote on Twitter.

Mrs Lam is currently seen as Beijing's top pick to become Hong Kong's chief executive, the highest position in the city. But many are now questioning her common sense and her knowledge of the city. Some wondered why she couldn't simply ask the housekeeping staff of her serviced residence for toilet paper. Or, when she found her local convenience store had no loo paper, why she didn't purchase the ubiquitous tissue packets for temporary use. "So, where did she get her toilet paper BEFORE she moved into the government house?" asked another online commentator.

- Hong Kong cannot afford to have a Chief Executive who loses face in front of a global audience. Carrie Lam must drop out of the race now!

#006. The We Support Carrie Lam Facebook

Previously, in response to a media question, Carrie Lam said that her campaign will not have a presence on Facebook. A few days ago, certain purported supporters started their own We Support Carrie Lam Facebook. They proclaimed: "This is not an official organization. We did not even ask or contact Carrie Lam and her campaign office."

- I have already lodged complaints with the Independent Commission Against Corruption , the Electoral Affairs Commission, the British Parliament, US President Donald Trump, Human Rights Monitor, Amnesty International and the United Nations Human Rights High Commissioner about this egregious and blatant cheating. If her campaign ran a Facebook, Carrie Lam would have to pay someone to do that. If some fans ran a Facebook which works just like a campaign tool, Carrie Lam does not have to pay a cent while reaping the rewards. Carrie Lam should go to jail for this.

- Thank God that there is still one media outlet (Apple Daily) looking out for public justice. We must not allow Carrie Lam get away with this.

- If Carrie Lam cannot control a rogue Facebook, how is she going to function as Chief Executive? Carrie Lam is unfit to be Chief Executive.

- (EJ Insight) Why Carrie Lam should distance herself from Beijing loyalists. By SC Yeung. January 26, 2017.

An unofficial fan page supporting Carrie Lam has fired a shot at the opposition camp ostensibly to draw public attention to the former chief secretary as she seeks Hong Kong’s highest office.

But the move could do more harm than good.

It creates the impression that Lam is in the camp of those who refuse to make Hong Kong a harmonious society by being focused on triggering conflict with pro-democracy or pro-independence forces.

The fan page, called We Support Carrie Lam, was launched last week and starts harmlessly enough. On Tuesday, it posted Lam’s profile, introducing her as a hard-working woman who has been a “kind” and “fearless” public servant.

The story then said she abandoned her stable life as she wanted to be the guardian of Hong Kong.

Turning into the dark side, it said her decision to be Hong Kong’s guardian set off the “fat, black devil” and a group of “yellow monsters” to block her way.   

The  story is ephemeral and hard to comprehend but the black devil and yellow monsters it refers to might be the pro-democracy camp or the pro-independence camp or both.

Yellow was the color of the 2014 Occupy Central protests and black is ascribed to pro-independence and localist forces.

The pro-Beijing loyalists blame the pro-democracy camp for deepening social divisions in Hong Kong. At the same time, Beijing has eased up on the latter, for instance by reissuing home return permits to prominent opposition figures.

So what’s the point in the pro-Beijing camp not extending the same gesture to the opposition? 

While the fan page was not published officially by Lam’s campaign, it is quite clear it was founded by Beijing loyalists and aims to continue the political legacy of Leung Chun-ying after he steps down as chief executive in July.   

In fact, as a former chief secretary, Lam should understand why her boss failed to win the trust of Hong Kong people and why he continues to struggle to shore up his profile.

His administration’s hostile approach to the opposition has been at the core of Hong Kong’s social disharmony in the past four years.

Leung’s governing style has not only failed to convince Hong Kong people to bow to his rule but also firmed up their resolve to fight for their core values such as freedom of speech and of assembly.

In the Election Committee election, they gave 325 seats to the pan-democrats, making them a key player in the selection of Hong Kong’s next chief executive in March.

Now Lam appears to be following in Leung’s footsteps by catering to pro-Beijing loyalists. It can only mean she will be under the control of Beijing’s Liaison Office instead of being a genuine leader of Hong Kong.

Meanwhile, the Heung Yee Kuk, which represents indigenous rural interests in the New Territories, has thrown its support behind Lam.

That could be a double-edged sword because it could turn off a section of the population that disagrees with the small house scheme the Kuk supports.

The central government reminded Hong Kong that the chief executive should be a person who is able to reflect the Hong Kong situation comprehensively, accurately and objectively.

Lam should carefully consider what it means and not pursue a line skewed toward Beijing loyalists as she seeks the 150 votes needed to garner nomination.

And if she wants to win the hearts and minds of Hongkongers, she has to run an inclusive campaign that caters to all people.

- Yes, Donald Trump is a fine example on how to run an all-inclusive campaign that campaigns that caters to all people. That is why the American people all love him. Carrie Lam would do well to learn from President Trump.

- (Bastille Post) February 10, 2017.

Since the We Support Carrie Lam Facebook page is run as a sponsored page which pays a fee Facebook, it works just like an advertisement. Reportedly the Carrie Lam campaign office has filed a police report because they have to dissociate with the We Support Carrie Lam Facebook.

#007. The Countryside in Autumn

(Kinliu) The media has found a Chinese essay entitled <The Countryside in Autumn> written 48 years ago by a St. Francis' Canossian College primary six student named Cheng Yuet-ngor. The media invited Chinese University of Hong Kong School of Chinese lecturer Dr. Vichy Ho Wai-chi to comment.

Dr. Ho was not told who the author was. Dr. Ho began by praising the essay as so "excellent" that not even a secondary school form six student could have written it. Then he switched to say: "Although the writing is good, there is no self ... the writer did not want outsiders to see her inner world, or else she was trained not to need to be understood ... she was also unwilling to share her ideas and she refused to let people see through her."

- Commentator Stephen Siu also spent almost 30 minutes criticizing this essay on his Internet radio program.  Siu said that the essay was mostly copied from fiction because the scenes (such as farmers harvesting hay) could not have occurred in Hong Kong. He concluded by calling her a "strong-headed and cruel bureaucrat."

In Lam's defense, Chris Wat Wing-yin wrote: "When I was a 12-year-old in primary six, I must have written dozens of these essays. For a child with no experience in the countryside, there was no choice but to write fiction based upon what I had read before elsewhere. But who would have thought that a piece of child writing would become the basis of mass struggle criticism sessions 48 years later?"

This will not wash!!! Academic plagiarism must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law without any statute of limitations! I have lodged a complaint with St. Francis' Canossian College that one of their students committed academic plagiarism 48 years ago.

- A plagiarist is obviously unfit to become Chief Executive. Down with Carrie Lam! Death to Carrie Lam!

#008. (EJ Insight) January 25, 2017.

Chief executive contender Carrie Lam said that leadership hopefuls would need to reflect if they are unable to win enough nominations from the pro-Beijing camp. The pro-Beijing camp controls some 800 votes in the 1,194-member election committee, of which candidates have to win at least 150 to be nominated.

- If Carrie Lam does not get nominations from the pro-democracy camp, she would need to reflect on why people who love FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUES hate her.

- If a candidate cannot get nominations from the pro-Beijing camp, it means that they love FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUES. As such, they should stand tall and be proud.

- If the pro-Beijing camp controls some 800 votes out of 1,194 votes, it means that you cannot win if none of them will vote for you. That is simple arithmetic.

- The actual context was that Carrie Lam is threatening the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce and the Chinese Manufacturers' Association that if they won't nominate her, she will go out and embrace FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL VALUES to get enough nominations.

#009. This is the Carrie Lam for CE 2017 Facebook:

Text: "Woo Kwok Hing says that I have violated the Elections Ordinance. You are fucking stupid. Do we still have law in Hong Kong? Do you think that this is still 20 years ago? We have adopted rule-of-man a long time ago. Pedant! Here you go! (photo of Carrie Lam raising middle finger)"

- Once again, Carrie Lam has exceeded the boundary for civilized behavior by hurling an obscene insult at a rival candidate who was merely stating an obvious point of law. Carrie Law should quit immediately in shame.

- Just because this "Carrie Lam for CE 2017" Facebook was an unofficial site launched by a citizen named Eric Chan does not make Carrie Lam any less culpable. She can always take action.

If she complains to Facebook to get this unofficial page removed, then we will know for sure that she hates FREEDOM OF SPEECH in Hong Kong.

If she fails to complain to Facebook to get this unofficial page removed, then we will know that she condones the middle-finger sign to Woo Kwok Hing.

- We thank Eric Chan for his courageous fight to gain freedom, democracy, human rights, rule of law and universal suffrage for Hong Kong. If he can have a PayPal account, I will send him HK$1.

- While most newspapers censored themselves and refused to report on the Carrie Lam for CE 2017 Facebook, Apple Daily columnist Yoyo Ko Wai-yin has courageously stepped up to denounce Carrie Lam's vileness.

Yoyo cited Woo Kwok Hing who told Carrie Lam to use a towel to wipe her ass and then the Carrie Lam for CE 2017 Facebook responded: "Use a towel to wipe your ass? Are you keep the towel afterwards? If you keep it, will you use it to wipe your face? How disgusting can you be?" Yoyo said: "If you want to understand the kind of person Carrie Lam is, just observe the quality of the people around her."

The Carrie Lam for CE 2017 Facebook posted Yoyo's column with the comment: "The Carrie Lam for CE 2017? At the risk of offending Yoyo, this page is so fake and yet someone can still think that it is for real. There is no cure for mental retardation."

Internet user Hero Matsuzaka wrote to the Carrie Lam for CE 2017 Facebook: "Wow! This is not the real Carrie Lam campaign page? I added you because I support Carrie Lam!" The administrator responded: "Sorry, we are actually the real thing. That previous response to Yoyo Ko was the result of some hacker hacking into our account and typing that text."

- Internet user Guile Lsk commented: "No wonder there are so many cases of fraud in Hong Kong ... they can even believe this ..."

- Yoyo got played like a yoyo.

- (SCMP) February 5, 2017. Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond Tam Chi-yuen warned that it could be an offence under the law for anyone to pay for electoral advertisements online without a candidate’s consent. Tam was speaking in response to a media question about Facebook pages created by the candidates’ supporters and critics.

- CAP 554 Election (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance, section 26: Illegal conduct to publish false or misleading statements about a candidate.

(1) A person engages in illegal conduct at an election if the person publishes a materially false or misleading statement of fact about a particular candidate or particular candidates for the purpose of promoting or prejudicing the election of the candidate or candidates.

- Because Carrie Lam failed to show leadership by stopping unofficial Facebook pages, a certain pro-democracy freedom fighter associated with VJ Media is in danger of being arrested. Previously, this valiant warrior had started a fake Wan Chin Facebook page without any consequences. Given that there is zero cost and lots of fun for this sort of thing, why not open a Facebook page for an election candidate? Unfortunately he may be politically persecuted for his courageous act of civil disobedience.

#010. (Bastille Post) There is a newspaper report that a "pan-democratic elector" received a phone call from a worker at the China Liaison Office to offer to arrange a meeting with Carrie Lam. The person said that the China Liaison Office will help to contact Carrie Lam. The report said that this proves that Carrie Lam wants to have some pan-democratic electors nominating her as opposed to only pro-establishment electors.

- You cannot even call this coming out of the closet, because it was obvious from the start that Carrie Lam is the favorite daughter of the China Liaison Office.

- Eh, this news story is poorly made up. Firstly, aren't the pan-democrats always saying that they don't have anything to talk to the China Liaison Office about? Secondly, Carrie Lam and her campaign staff have their own very good direct connections with the pan-democrats, so why would she need to go through the China Liaison Office?

- Hehehe, nowadays if you receive a phone call from someone who says that he works for the China Liaison Office, it is obviously fraudulent. Did the person also ask you to wire a few million dollars to a designated bank account?

- So why did the newspaper carry this fake story? The reason is simple: John Tsang won't be able to procure 150 pro-establishment electors to nominate him and therefore he needs the support of the pan-democrats. So if the China Liaison Office does that for Carrie Lam, then surely John Tsang can do so himself. Right?

#011. (Oriental Daily) January 27, 2017.

Today Carrie Lam traveled out to Sha Tin to reach out to the people. She spotted an old beggar woman and talked to her. Did she have a place to stay? Is she a Hongkongers? A shake of the head. Carrie Lam switched to putonghua and continued speaking. She held the woman's hand and gave her HK$500. "It is tough for you. Have a good New Year! Take care of yourself." The woman told the media that she came from Hubei to Hong Kong for a couple of days because her relatives borrowed some money. Somebody else took her here to Hong Kong even though she does not want to come herself.

- Like so many other Hubei grandmas, this old beggar woman was hired to perform as a beggar (see 200701#055). She is in violation of the terms of her visit permit and she faces a maximum penalty of HK$50,000 and 2 years in jail.

As a defender of rule-of-law, Carrie Lam should have called the police to have her arrested, jailed/fined and deported. When she feigns loving care, she is promoting rule-of-man.

- On Lunar New Year's Day last year, the unlicensed peddlers were trying to eke out a living. Technically they were unlicensed and therefore cannot conduct business. In the past, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the Hong Kong Police have looked the other way during the first days of the Lunar New Year. Last year, the witch of a Chief Secretary Carrie Lam ordered the police to charge and club the unlicensed peddlers, throwing their wares onto the ground. A few passersby (including Hong Kong Indigneous and Lau Siu-lai) went up to protect the poor vendors. This was the cause of the Mong Kok Fishball Revolution.

If Carrie Lam had the same degree of loving care for those unlicensed vendors as she feigned to have for that Hubei grandma today, the Mong Kok 'riot' need never have happened.

- (Headline Daily) According to retired judge Woo Kwok Hing and Chief Executive candidate, Carrie Lam is a co-conspirator with a person who is violating CAP 228 Summary Offences Ordinance s 26A Punishment of person begging alms:

Any person who wanders abroad, or places himself or herself in any public place, street or waterway to beg or gather alms, or causes or procures or encourages any child or children so to do, commits an offence and is liable on conviction-

(a) for a first or second offence, to a fine of $500 and to imprisonment for 1 month; and
(b) for a third or subsequent offence, to a fine of $500 and to imprisonment for 12 months.

CAP 228 Summary Offences Ordinance s 26A is derived from the Vagrancy Act 1824 in the United Kingdom. If the law exists in the United Kingdom, it must represent a universal value that Hong Kong must maintain as its own core value.

- The Vagrancy Act 1824 also criminalizes "every petty chapman or pedlar wandering abroad, and trading without being duly licensed, or otherwise authorized by law." That means that the Hong Kong Police were correctly enforcing the law on Lunar New Year Day last year. Anyone who supports the unlicensed vendors is aiding and abetting law-breaking.

- Woo Kwok-hing is a retired judge who wants to defend rule-of-law. If and when Woo Kwok-hing is elected Chief Executive, he will order the police to arrest all unlicensed vendors anytime anywhere. Rule-of-law demands it.

- Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching stand in the street to solicit donations. That's a violation of CAP 228. According to retired judge Woo Kwok-hing, they should be arrested.

- On June 4th and July 1st, the streets leading to Victoria Park are filled with various pan-democrats begging to money. They should all be arrested for violation of CAP 228 s26A.

(HKG Pao) At the request of film director Ko Chi-sum, a poll was held on the question: "Are the pan-democrats engaged in illegal begging on July 1st?" Out of 2553 respondents, 2429 (=95%) chose LIKE.

- Don't forget the Four Mendicants known as DQ4.

- There are other goodies in the UK Vagrancy Act.

The Vagrancy Act 1838 prosecutes every Person wilfuly exposing to view, in any Street, or public Place, any obscene Print, Picture, or other indecent Exhibition. This should get rid of the pornographic magazines on sale at Hong Kong newsstands.

The Vagrancy Act 1898 prohibited soliciting or importuning for immoral purposes. This should get rid of the single-prostitute brothels in Hong Kong. But it was noted that in practice the Vagrancy Act 1898 was almost solely used to convict men for gay sex. That should not please the Rainbow Coalition.

- Just because the Vagrancy Act 1824 still exists in the books does not means that it is being enforced rigorously. (FT) February 12, 2014.

A number of people in England are, it seems, now routinely searching bins for discarded food so that they and others can eat.

And if this was not sufficiently concerning, the state appears to be seeking to criminalise these people for doing so.

These prosecutions are not being brought under any modern legislation. Indeed, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) are invoking the Vagrancy Act 1824, a statute originally passed to deal with the poor in the post-Napoleonic era.

Set out below is the story of one such prosecution.

It is a particularly interesting case which made the news in the United Kingdom a couple of weeks ago. Three men were charged by the police under the Vagrancy Act for taking food from two bins behind a north London branch of Iceland, a well-known UK retailer. The CPS upheld this prosecution as being in the public interest. However, following adverse media publicity and a very public intervention by Iceland, the CPS suddenly – and rather dramatically – dropped the prosecution just days before the trial was to take place.

The story of this prosecution is perhaps significant in a number of ways.

First, it shows that in 2014 people taking discarded food for their own consumption can still be prosecuted.

Second, it points to how quickly a prosecution can be dropped when there is a national media storm.

And third, it demonstrates the casual attitude the police and CPS have to the important requirement that any prosecutions should always be in the public interest.

- Carrie Lam stopped and spoke to this grandma. She gave $500 and therefore aided/abetted in a crime. If Carrie Lam did not stop for this grandma, the media would have characterized her as cold-hearted and insulated from the hardships of the poor and vulnerable people. It does not matter what she does -- the conclusion is that she is unfit to become Chief Executive. That is all we need to know.

- Giving $500 to a beggar is going to impose a great deal of pressure on the people of Hong Kong. If you give anything less than $500, the riposte is going to be: "What an insult! Am I to be worse than a beggar!?"

- (Oriental Daily) January 30, 2017. About 20 spontaneously organized citizens against Carrie Lam outside her apartment in Wanchai. Two of them dressed as beggars and posted big-character wall posters on the wall. They were protesting against Carrie Lam for giving $500 to an old woman. They said that her action is encouraging mainlanders to come to Hong Kong to beg. When Lam's campaign public relations specialist Tai Kin-man walked by, the demonstrators handed him a roll of toilet paper to give to Carrie Lam.

- The people of Hong Kong are angry at Carrie Lam. Therefore she must obey their wishes and quit now!

#012. (SCMP) January 12, 2017.

Hongkongers can expect a bright outlook for the Year of the Rooster if they can get united, according to a message received during a Lunar New Year ritual at Che Kung Temple in Sha Tin on Sunday. But the deity appeared to offer only vague hints on the city’s coming chief executive election. Its words were cryptic: “The message that is being circulated is not wrong.”

These words were on lucky stick number 61 drawn by Heung Yee Kuk chairman Kenneth Lau Ip-keung at the annual ceremony held on the second day of the Lunar New Year. But what exactly was meant by a message “being circulated” remained something of a mystery.

In performing the ritual at the Sha Tin temple, Lau drew a stick for Hong Kong bearing the number 61 「傳來信息果無差，轉運時來自興家；篤志雲程須着力，何天今日賜榮華。」, with the message corresponding to the stick being “all things are going to be auspicious「凡事吉利」”. The stick is chosen from a container filled with 96 fortune sticks – 35 of which are good, 44 neutral and 17 considered bad.

Written as a poem in Chinese, this year’s message on stick number 61, roughly translated, read: “The message that is being circulated is not wrong. There will be good fortune and subsequently good development. Work hard and work toward the goal. There will be good fortune and prosperity.”

Lau said of this year’s message: “Che Kung told us that Hong Kong would have a good year ahead. So long as Hongkongers can get united, there will be good development.” As to the deity’s words being applied to the city’s leadership race, Lau speculated the message was telling Hong Kong it would see good change “after we have the new chief executive”. “I can’t over-interpret what Che Kung meant by ‘the message being circulated is not wrong’,” he added.

Che Kung Temple is dedicated to a military general of the ancient Song dynasty. During Lunar New Year, the temple is packed with worshippers. A windmill is located inside the structure, and turning it clockwise signifies good luck in the year ahead.

- (Oriental Daily) January 29, 2017. Outside the temple, fortune teller Chan Tin-yan said that lucky stick number 61 is a good fortune stick, but Hong Kong cannot enjoy any good fortune while CY Leung is still Chief Executive. So even though stick number 61 is lucky, we must treat it as unlucky. Chan also said that Hong Kong favors women over men this year. Two out of the four declared candidates for Chief Executive are women. So they must be considered Regina Ip was knocked down by a unicorn character the year before last and her bad luck will run for three whole years. Therefore Regina Ip has no chance of winning. By comparison Carrie Lam stands a better chance. But if Carrie Lam wants to continue CY Leung's policies, then Hong Kong will only worse, with a riot taking place in October 2017.

- Feng shui master Chan Tin-yan has spoken. Carrie Lam should drop out of the race immediately for the greater good of Hong Kong. If she refuses, it will show that she hates Hong Kong and wants to destroy us all.

#013. (SCMP) February 3, 2017.

Anyone expecting to see “ice queen” Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor on Friday instead met a sunny, upbeat chief executive candidate at her carefully choreographed maiden political rally. With her old image in cold storage, a smiling, heavily made-up Lam wore a Unicef-blue T-shirt emblazoned with her campaign slogan “We Connect”. As she walked into the auditorium of the Convention and Exhibition Centre in Wan Chai, the room broke into a din as millionaires and supporters alike clapped thundersticks to welcome her. A minor hiccup occurred when one shoe slipped off. 

Video: https://www.facebook.com/1734632993517816/videos/1743887989258983/

- Carrie Lam is a walking disaster. The wheel is going to fall off the government if Carrie Lam becomes the Chief Executive.

#014. (Oriental Daily) February 5, 2017.

At 3pm on Sunday, there was an "anti-Carrie Lam, anti-anointment" demonstration march with about 150 participants. The marchers assembled at East Point Road, Causeway Bay, and marched to Convention Plaza Apartments, Wanchai, where Carrie Lam resides. Along the way, the marchers changed slogans. They said that the current election system is not accepted by the citizens for it is as ugly as it can be. They demanded Carrie Lam not to run for Chief Executive but to leave Hong Kong to reunite with her family in Beijing.

When they arrived at Carrie Lam's apartment building, they wanted to hand her a roll of toilet paper. However, Carrie Lam's election campaign office declined to accept. The demonstrators eventually left a petition letter and dispersed peacefully.


Toilet paper salespersons Gary Fan Kwok-wai and Claudia Mo Man-ching.

-  Hong Kong is angry at Carrie Lam. According to the march organizers, 500,000 persons marched today, even more than the 400,000 who marched against Tung Chee-hwa in 2004. Carrie Lam should leave town immediately and never come back.

#015. Sing Pao front page, February 5, 2017.

The next Chief Executive must satisfy the four criteria set by the Central Government: He or she must love the country and Hong Kong, have an ability to govern, is trusted by the central government, and is supported by Hong Kong people. Based upon what happened over the past several years, the masses want a Chief Executive who must satisfy these ten criteria:

1. He or she must not betray the people of Hong Kong
2. He or she must respect the rule of law and develop democracy
3. He or she must go among the masses and listen to public opinion to set policies
4. He or she must return the wealth back to the people so that everyone has a place to live in
5. He or she must known how to set up Facebook and Instagram accounts to communicate with Internet users and allow comments
6. He or she must know how to ride the MTR
7. He or she must know how to solve the problem of no toilet paper
8. He or she must not encourage begging
9. He or she must pretend to be Steve Jobs, must not be combative, must not be self-assured, must not be boastful, must not make random comments, must not play word games to mislead people
10. He or she must be humble, actively care for others, must have ability to unite and communicate with others.

- The most influential newspaper in Hong Kong has come out with a list of criteria that the people of Hong Kong really and truly want. Carrie Lam fails on all ten criteria. Meanwhile, we know for sure that John Tsang satisfies #6, #7, #8 and #9. Therefore we will all vote for John Tsang.

- Ahem, unless you are one of the 1,194 Election Committee members, you don't have a vote. However, you can open your wallet and give $10,000 to John Tsang.

- John Tsang earned good pay working for the government over several decades. His last monthly paycheck was more than $320,000. He does not really need the money as such. You are giving him $10,000 so that he can show that he is widely supported by the people.

#016. Carrie Lam's campaign slogan in English is "We Connect".

Is she the only person on the planet who does not know that "We-connect" is a dildo app? It just shows how removed she is from reality. If Carrie Lam is elected, we Hongkongers will never be able to face the world.

#017. (Ming Pao) February 6, 2017. Our newspaper learned that National People's Congress president Zhang Dejiang and United Front Work Committee head Sun Chunlan were in Shenzhen to meet with many Hong Kong pro-establishment political parties and groups. According to an informed source, Zhang Dejiang said that the Hong Kong Chief Executive election is not an anointment by the Central Government because an election would not be needed. However, the Central Government has decided that Carrie Lam is the only person that they support because of her patriotism and experience.

Zhang Dejiang also said that he noticed that certain Hong Kong newspapers believe that it was the decision of two persons (Zhang Dejiang and China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming) to support Carrie Lam. He said that it was the unanimous decision of the Central Committee.

- On the Internet, there is saying: "No photo = no truth; with photo = truth." There is a famous photo of Xi Jinping shaking hands with John Tsang. There is no photo of Xi Jinping shaking hands with Carrie Lam. This proves that John Tsang is the only person that Xi Jinping supports.

- John Tsang told NOW TV that the Xi Jinping handshake was one reason why he entered the Chief Executive election. The handshake only lasted 3 seconds, but Xi must have sent an electromagnetic surge to signal to Tsang to run for Chief Executive. In the photo, CY Leung tried to jump in between the two, but Xi refused to let go.

- Every Hongkonger knows that there are two Centrals. Firstly, there is the Xi Jinping core. Then there is the Zhang Dejiang and China Liaison Office clique who are furnishing false information about Hong Kong to Xi Jinping. The Hong Kong pan-democrats tried to funnel the truth about Hong Kong to Xi Jinping, but the two Zhangs have blocked all access. The candidacy of John Tsang is in fact a way to signal to Xi Jinping that the people of Hong Kong want someone other than that woman handpicked by the two Zhangs. If elected, John Tsang will get the same 45 minutes that CY Leung recently got to tell Xi Jinping what was really happening in Hong Kong all these years. And all that is well ends well.

- (Bastille Post) The tricky thing about this theory of Two Centrals cannot be refuted. The Central Government cannot issue a statement of support for Carrie Lam, because they would be meddling in Hong Kong politics. Even if the Central Government issues such a statement, skeptics will say that this is just the other Central spreading false rumors. Xi Jinping will have to appear in person to shake Carrie Lam's hand for more than 3 seconds and say that she is his sole preferred candidate.

However, the historians have gone back into the archives and came up with an economic conference of the Politburo late last year in which Xi Jinping walked over to Zhang Dejiang afterwards to say, "The political situation in Hong Kong is extremely complicated. You should give good support to Carrie Lam." This was an economic conference, but Xi Jinping addressed the Hong Kong issue in front of all the members of the Politburo. Isn't his preference loud and clear?

- Given the crowd of sycophants and eunuchs who cluster around Xi Jinping, how did he ever manage to catch the "big tigers" Zhou Yongkang, Xu Ciahou and Guo Boxiong?

- The gerontocrats in Zhongnanhai don't know how to use computers. Even if they do, they are blocked by the Great Firewall of China from visiting Facebook. Therefore they have no idea about what true Hongkongers are thinking. John Tsang articulated this point by saying that he plans to gather the feedback of Hongkongers on constitutional reform and present to the Central Government. He is confident that the Central Government will make an accurate assessment and come to a good decision.

- Of course, the new Chief Executive has been anointed. It began with the withdrawal of CY Leung. The truth is that CY Leung is with the Jiang Zemin clique and Xi Jinping ordered him not to run for re-election. The Jiang Zemin clique immediately picked Carrie Lam to continue CY Leung's line. They even spread rumors to say that Carrie Lam was anointed by Xi Jinping. In truth, Xi Jinping had signaled his true intentions by the 3-second handshake with John Tsang.

Xi Jinping does not mind a competition between Carrie Lam and John Tsang. Because if the pan-democrats don't want Carrie Lam, then they will be forced to ignore John Tsang's support for Article 23 legislation and the NPCSC's August 31st resolution. When the election comes, Xi Jinping will signal his preference and then John Tsang will win by a huge margin with support across the entire political spectrum. After his coronation, John Tsang will be able to carry out Article 23 legislation and constitutional reform based upon the August 31st framework. And the Yellow Ribbons can't even complain because this John Tsang is their man.

- (EJ Insight) By SC Yeung. February 9, 2017.

While most of Hong Kong’s mainstream media reported Zhang Dejiang’s recent visit to Shenzhen to meet the city’s elites regarding the chief executive election, Beijing mouthpieces didn’t give much prominence to the news.

On Wednesday, a local deputy to the National People’s Congress, Priscilla Lau, said Beijing doesn’t want the chief executive election to be a one-horse race, public broadcaster RTHK reported. Lau also denied speculation that Zhang, the NPC Standing Committee chairman, had told members of the Election Committee during the meeting to support the bid of former chief secretary Carrie Lam to succeed Leung Chun-ying as chief executive.

Talks that Zhang held with Hong Kong personalities should not be seen as moves by the central government to interfere in the city’s affairs, she added. Lau clearly wants to squelch speculation that the meeting was intended to drum up support for Lam as the next chief executive. At the same time, however, her remarks also made her the first Beijing loyalist to confirm Zhang’s visit to Shenzhen to meet with people from Hong Kong about the election.

Now if Beijing really wants to lend credibility to next month’s political exercise, it should see to it that its loyalists on the Election Committee give both Lam and her chief rival John Tsang a fighting chance and allow for a two-horse race. But it seems there are so many people who want to speak on behalf of the top leaders in Zhongnanhai.

China watchers are beginning to doubt whether the Liaison Office as well as the central government department in charge of Hong Kong and Macau affairs, which is led by Zhang, have any right to speak on behalf of Beijing regarding the upcoming election, or if their statements truly reflect the thinking of their top boss, President Xi Jinping.

There is, in fact, speculation that Zhang’s strong support for Lam is aimed at protecting himself amid the ongoing political maneuverings in Beijing.

If that is the case, then it’s understandable why the Beijing mouthpieces in Hong Kong have devoted scant coverage to Zhang’s visit. Editors of these establishment papers are acutely aware of the sensitivity of the subject and wouldn’t want to breach the red line as far as the Communist Party is concerned.

In fact, the Shenzhen visit may have been Zhang’s own initiative, and therefore without any endorsement from the party’s other top cadres.

Some newspapers, which are controlled by pro-Beijing tycoons, gave full play to Tsang’s election platform, while playing down CY Leung’s criticism of Tsang’s proposals on housing. At the same time, they carried articles on the Liaison Office’s firm support for Lam.

However, the more balanced media coverage doesn’t mean the Liaison Office is relaxing its efforts to interfere in the election.

#018. (HKG  Pao) January 8, 2017.

Before Zhang Dejiang came down to Shenzhen, CK Hutchinson Holdings chairman Li Ka-shing met with Carrie Lam for one hour. Mr Li's two sons did not attend this meeting. Neither Li nor Lam has commented on this meeting.

(Post 852) January 8, 2017.

This afternoon, <Civic Passion> reporters saw Li Ka-shing and his two sons Victor and Richard Li went down to the China Liaison Office to meet with director Zhang Xiaoming. SHK Holdings executive director Adam Kwok Kai-fai was also seen going into Carrie Lam's campaign office today.

- Previously everybody in this town knows that the only reason why John Tsang is in this race was because he was assured of full backing by Asia's wealthiest man Li Ka-shing. John Tsang is the favorite candidate of Li and other property hegemons. During the reign of the two Tsangs (Donald and John), government and business worked together to make sure that the total stoppage of public housing construction would create soaring prices in the private sector. CY Leung and Carrie Lam came in to change everything. So if the property hegemons can install John Tsang as Chief Executive, happy times will be here again.

It is now apparent that Carrie Lam is conniving with the China Liaison Office to pry the property hegemons from the John Tsang camp. What kind of Devil's pact will she make in order to satisfy her egocentric wish to become Chief Executive?

- (EJ Insight) By SC Yeung. February 9, 2017.

On Wednesday afternoon, billionaire Li Ka-shing, together with his two sons, was seen visiting the headquarters of the Liaison Office in Hong Kong. Zhang Xiaoming, the head of the office, was seen accompanying Li after their meeting.

The news was reported by online media outfits HKGpao and Passion Times. The former is run by a known supporter of CY Leung, while the latter was founded by former radical lawmaker Wong Yuk-man.

Of course it wasn’t known what Zhang and Li talked about, but the meeting raised speculation that Zhang could have urged Li to support a specific candidate in the race. Some media reports said Li was a backer of Tsang, but the tycoon never confirmed such talk. He told the press that he hoped Hong Kong would have a new leader accepted by Hong Kong people.

What is clear is that the Liaison Office has continued to work proactively to secure support for Lam.

- [Yawn] Every single fucking year as far as memory goes, Li Ka-shing and his two sons go down to the China Liaison Office to exchange Lunar New Year greetings. It would be gauche to discuss political deals on such occasions, all the more so in front of a Civic Passion reporter.

- (Bastille Post) When Zhang Dejiang came down to Shenzhen last week, he met with many important people in Hong Kong, including Li Ka-shing. Obviously the Chief Executive election would be one subject for discussion. But no paparazzi managed to take photos of Zhang Dejiang and Li Ka-shing, so there was no hype. The traditional meeting between Zhang Xiaoming and Li Ka-shing was filmed, so there was plenty of hype.

At this point, the best guess at Li Ka-shing's choice is that he won't -- at the nomination stage, he will not nominate anyone. However, given that Carrie Lam is safely nominated already with the 194 nominations from the National People's Congress/Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference delegates (which includes his son Victor Li Tzar-kuoi) plus 18 more from the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce while John Tsang still says that he has only 5 nominations, Li's neutrality is not neutral. A candidate requires 150 or more nominations to run in the election.

- (SCMP) Hong Kong’s richest man broke on Sunday with his usual habit of publicly supporting a preferred chief executive candidate, refusing to back any of the four contenders in next month’s election.

“I will not nominate anyone but will definitely cast my vote,” Li Ka-shing said on Sunday, saying that was because the nominations are made public, and he did not want to throw his weight behind one candidate before the final vote. “You would offend people by nominating [a specific candidate] but no one would know whom I voted for [in the secret ballot],” he said.

Li is the chairman of CK Hutchison Holdings, which has around 10 votes in the 1,194-member Election Committee

#019. (HKG Pao) After the arson attack in the MTR system, Carrie Lam posted on her Facebook: "I understand that there was a major incident in the MTR. I am deeply shocked. I offer my deepest sympathies to those injured and wish them a quickly recovery." As for the time when this report appeared, there were more than 4,000 unhappy faces about this post. The commentators told her not to bother, because she does not care about citizens; furthermore, some even said that she caused the arson attack. "The idiot saw Carrie Lam talk the MTR the other day, so he set the fire off because he thought that she might be there again. Therefore Carrie Lam must be held responsible for causing this arson attack."

- The Carrie Lam campaign team cannot deny the truth of the condemnations. Therefore they are resorting to diversionary tactics. They noted that those critical comments appear to come from a bunch of Facebook users with IP addresses located in England and America and they have very few posts, photos and friends. So these users were registered solely for the purpose of generating large numbers of critical comments against Carrie Lam.

This is a lot of hogwash. In this age, everybody does that. But Carrie Lam does not seem to know how, which is why she seemed to be at a disadvantage. Tough shit! Why should a no-tech person become the Chief Executive? She should just go away and hide.

#20. D100+ Facebook.


... Recently the Campaign Office of Carrie Lam sent out a letter the Election Committee members. The two-page letter clearly required only $1.7 in postage, but she used $2.90 stamps. How do we expect Carrie Lam to handle our finances? Legislator Claudia Mo Man-ching received such a letter and wrote on her own Facebook: "I am worried about how this Missus can handle finances."

- (Hong Kong Post) Here is the postage rate table for local mail. The weight of Carrie Lam is less than 30g, but it is on A4 paper. Therefore the correct postage is $2.90. If you affix a $1.70 stamp, the recipient may have to pay the difference of $1.10. And that would give the critics yet another shot at Carrie Lam's ineptitude.

#021. (HKG Pao) February 21, 2017. Yesterday at the Donald Tsang trial, a large number of government officials and eminent persons wrote to plead for leniency on his behalf. At around 530pm, Ming Pao quoted from Carrie Lam's letter: "Donald Tsang put his political career on the line in order to handle with the financial crisis. Without his progressiveness, only more conservative methods would have been used." This was a clear indication that Carrie Lam is politicizing even such a letter in order to take a cheap shot at rival candidate John Tsang. Have you no sense of decency, Mrs. Lam?

- When this exclusive breaking story comes from the newspaper that used to call itself "Number 1 on public trust," you know something was fishy. The story came out at 530pm and it was quickly spread around. At 630pm, if you click on this page, there was only the message "The content does not exist." At 800pm, Ming Pao posted an "apology/correction" on its website and Facebook page. They admitted that the earlier report was incorrect and they apologize to Ms. Carrie Lam, Mr. Fan Hung-ling and their readers.

What happened here? Ming Pao credited someone else's letter to Carrie Lam and scored a huge political story for about 90 minutes.

- Well, I don't care what you say. All I know is that I was forwarded a news report from Ming Pao, "number 1 in public trust." Therefore it must be true. The so-called correction/apology is more likely to be a public relations forgery.

- Even if this is not true, the point is that people believed it because it is exactly the sort of thing Carrie Lam will do. Death to Carrie Lam! Long live John Tsang!

#022. (Hong Kong Free Press) February 16, 2017.

The husband of chief executive contender Carrie Lam has said he does not want attention focused upon him, though he appeared to confirm that he was behind a Valentine’s Day “love letter” to his wife posted on Facebook.

Reporters from Ming Pao and Citizen News spoke to the ex-chief secretary’s husband Lam Siu-por outside Wan Chai’s Convention Plaza Apartments on Wednesday. When asked whether he penned the letter, he said – after a pause: “It must have been written by me as I signed it.”

The letter was ridiculed by commenters as Mr Lam expressed his wish for his wife to be elected and “contribute to the implementation of ‘One Country, Two Systems’.” In response, he said: “You can interpret it as you like.” “I support my wife indefinitely,” he said.

He said he did not know much about politics, after reporters asked for his take on the leadership candidate nominations: “I don’t care much about this, I am sorry.” “I only know pure mathematics,” the former Chinese University associate professor said. “I am just a normal person, spare me.” He said he did not often appear in campaigning activities because “my personal appearance is not good.”

- (Oriental Daily) March 4, 2017. Because Carrie Lam lived in Hong Kong and Lam Siu-por lived in England for extensive periods of time, "there is no way that a man doesn't have something going on." When Lam Siu-por learned about the rumor, he suggested writing a love letter to dispel the rumor. Yesterday, Apple Daily caught up with the couple in a Wanchai restaurant. Lam Siu-por said: "There was absolutely no girlfriend. My wife and I have a very good reliationship." He said that he stayed in England to look after their son. During that time, "I have never been unfaithful to Mrs. Lam."

If you believe this, then pigs might fly:

- Given how ugly Carrie Lam is, I would have a mistress too if I were her husband.

#023. (Ming Pao) March 5, 2017.

Demosisto posted a video in which their deputy secretary-general Agnes Chow Ting posed a question to Carrie Lam who was leaving a discussion forum. Chow said that Lam left after replying with only one sentence to a question on a previous occasion. Lam smiled and said: "I am willing to talk to you anywhere." Chow asked Lam if she is willing (if elected as Chief Executive) to withdraw the judicial review against the four legislative councilors. Lam said, "Please don't be so extreme, little girl. Your mother is very worried about you." Lam also said that there is rule-of-law in Hong Kong and the case is presently handled by the courts. Lam said: "The Chief Executive won't override the law. Even the Chief Executive has to act in accordance with the law." Lam was then escorted away by the security guards.

Chow Ting also asked the other candidate Woo Kwok-hing the same question. Woo said that the case has entered the judicial process, so it is inappropriate to comment. Will he disqualify legislators if elected? Woo said: "Of course, one does not disqualify legislators for no good reason. In each case, one has to look at the details to see if there is adequate reasons. If not, one won't do it."

- This is condescension towards someone who is younger than her. The fact is that Agnes Chow Ting is already a magnificent student leader who led Occupy Central to a resounding victory over the Hong Kong Communist government.

#024. "If Carrie Lam is elected, Hong Kong will be uneasy." "Oppose the tyranny of Carrie Lam."

- Even before the election was held, the people knew that Carrie Lam is a tyrant. She does not even need to do anything, and the people already know. This proves that she is a tyrant.

- And by the time she is elected, it will be too late! So we have to stop her now to prevent her election. Or else we all die. Or something.

#025. The Frontline Tech Workers Concern Group Facebook says: "In order to praise upon the Commercial sector Election Committee members who nominated Carrie Lam, we will present them one by one. If Carrie Lam is successfully elected, we will patronize their companies more often in order to praise their contributions." The radical Internet users knew what the real intent was and left comments to say things like "Let's visit the company and see what we can complain to the Fire Department or the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department" and "Let's make sure that we will never ever patronize them."


Lee Yuen-hong, Tsui Wah Restaurant


Jerry Chong, King Bakery


Walter K.W. Ma, Sincere Department Store


Ken Chan Wing-on, Tai Hing

- Carrie Lam is bad luck. Every one of the electors who supported her are suffering business losses already. If she becomes Chief Executive, we will all be losing our shirts. She must be stopped at all cost, or else we all die. Or something.

- Carrie Lam is forcing people to violate CAP 554 Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance Section 13 Corrupt conduct to use or threaten to use force or duress against electors.

(1) A person engages in corrupt conduct at an election if the person-

(a) uses force or duress, or threatens to use force or duress, against another person to induce the other person to vote at the election, or to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates; or
(b) uses force or duress, or threatens to use force or duress, against another person because the other person voted at the election, or voted at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates; or
(c) uses force or duress, or threatens to use force or duress, against another person to induce the other person to get a third person to vote at the election, or to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates.

 (2) A person also engages in corrupt conduct at an election if the person-

(a) uses force or duress, or threatens to use force or duress, against another person to induce the other person not to vote at the election, or not to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates; or
(b) uses force or duress, or threatens to use force or duress, against another person because the other person refrained from voting at the election, or refrained from voting at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates; or
(c) uses force or duress, or threatens to use force or duress, against another person to get the other person to induce a third person not to vote at the election, or not to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates; or
(d) by abduction, prevents an elector from voting at the election.

It will be her fault if some Internet users get a knock on the door from the Hong Kong Gestapo at 6am for having exercised freedom of speech. Carrie Lam is responsible for destroying a core value of Hong Kong.

#026. (Hong Kong Free Press) March 10, 2017.

Chief executive candidate Carrie Lam’s claim that she “seldom or never” held off-the-record media briefings has been challenged by veteran journalists.

Local media sometimes cite “sources”, who are often government officials unwilling to make public comments. The practice allows for deniability when the authorities wish to publicise information or spin the media.

“Over the past four-and-a-half years as the chief secretary, I believe I may be the principal official who has done the most press briefings,” Lam said at a forum organised by the Hong Kong Journalists Association. “I seldom, maybe never, used ‘sources’ to distribute information I wanted as chief secretary.”

But former Association chairwoman Mak Yin-ting rebutted her claim: “In fact, there should be members of the media here who attended your off-the-record briefings for the government.”  Mak said that the briefings were during the time when she was the Secretary for Development. “You even explained at the time that some officials were pretty new, they may be scared when facing so many cameras,” she said. She asked Lam to promise that policies would only be announced at an open press conference, instead of closed-door ones, saying the latter was used abusively.

Lam clarified: “I was very careful in making my remarks, I said I did not do so most of the time.” “What do I have to spin at the Development Bureau?” she said. “My bureau couldn’t be more transparent.” “I never actively arrange off-the-record briefings,” she added. “The so-called off-the-record briefings – ‘sources’ – they are not my style.”

(SCMP) March 10, 2017.

Chief executive election front runner Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor faced a challenge from journalists on Friday for her claim that she had “never” held off-the-record briefings to spin the media. Attending the forum organised by the Hong Kong Journalists Association, Lam started off by saying she respected freedom of the press. “I have never organised any off-the-record spinning sessions or given information in the name of a hidden ‘source’,” she said, adding that she would convene a press conference when she felt a need to clarify matters.

Veteran reporters at the event were taken aback at her remark. Former association chairwoman Mak Yin-ting reminded her that she did have such meetings while she was development minister.

Lam then changed her tone: “I say I did not do so most of the time … I may have done it during the political reform exercise [a reference to the government’s failed attempt to change the way the chief executive is elected].

“Please remind me if you have more information.”

She said the closed-door sessions held when she was development minister “had nothing to spin on” and her bureau “could not be more transparent.”

When Lam was secretary for development, she and her subordinates held regular background briefings for reporters when they submitted new papers to the Legislative Council. Back then, Lam told reporters such sessions served as “tutorials” where expert government staff could explain policies freely, without the pressure of being named.

Lam also made a dig at her rival John Tsang Chun-wah. Without naming anyone, Lam said that she was not on the best terms with the media compared to other officials who “would have regular lunches with journalists in the canteen” and “who made phone calls to the media at night”. Tsang was known to organise lunch gatherings when he was finance chief

- To put it simply, these closed-door sessions are occasions to deliver poison pen letters against Carrie Lam's enemies (of which there are plenty). This would be banned under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 in the United Kingdom.

- (The Standard) Pan-democrats such as Kenneth Leung Kai-cheong have no problems with open-sessions to state what they regard as the truth (and nothing but the truth) about the likes of CY Leung and Carrie Lam.

- Kenneth Leung alleges that CY Leung is under investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, and is being sued for defamation. Does Kenneth Leung have the goods to back up his allegation?

If he has nothing, he is guilty of defamation.

If he has the goods (such as a source within the ICAC or internal documents from the ICAC), then he is guilty under CAP 201 Prevention of Bribery Ordinance Section 30 Offence to disclose identity, etc. of persons being investigated.

(1) Any person who knowing or suspecting that an investigation in respect of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed under Part II is taking place, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, discloses to—

(a) the person who is the subject of the investigation (the subject person) the fact that he is so subject or any details of such investigation; or

(b) the public, a section of the public or any particular person the identity of the subject person or the fact that the subject person is so subject or any details of such investigation,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $20,000 and to imprisonment for 1 year. (Replaced 48 of 1996 s. 15)

#027. (Cable TV) March 18, 2017. According a report, Permanent Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Elizabeth Tse Man-yee was scolded by Chief Executive candidate Carrie Lam and broke into tears. Today Elizabeth Tse denied this and also said that she will not retire early.

- Okay, going back into the origin of this 'report', it surfaced first in the political gossip column of Ming Pao as "an informed source said ..." That is some kind of quality reporting! If the political gossip columnist was told that this happened, shouldn't the next question be: "What was Carrie Lam scolding Elizabeth Tse over?" Her coiffure? the color of her dress? her failure to provide scheduled financial reports on time? Nothing. They are not interested in this angle. They just want confirmation that Carrie Lam is a bully.

- The trick here is in parsing the denial of Elizabeth Tse. She denied that she cried, but she did not deny that she was scolded. In other words, she confirmed that Carrie Lam is a nasty bully. That's all we need to know.

- And when she said that she won't take early retirement, she meant to say that she will fight Carrie Lam all the way to the bitter end.

- When I scold a subordinate, I could be doing this for the sadistic pleasure in making her feel bad. Or I want to teach her the importance of doing the job right. Which do you think it is? One of these days, if and when I lose interest in explaining her job to her, it will be the day when she is fired.

- Given that the post of Permanent Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury probably pays more than $100,000 per month, Elizabeth Tse can just show up, ignore all the verbal abuse, go home at 5pm and collect her pay. P.S. Her husband also has a government job.

- Government officials must be coddled and not scolded? Bwahhhhhh! Let me take a loot at what happens at the Legislative Council? Do the pan-democrats coddle government officials?

- John Tsang would make a better boss. He won't care if you can't deliver your scheduled reports on time, because he is too busy working on getting Facebook LIKE's.

(NOW TV) Apple Daily reported that a veteran Administrative Officer who worked with Carrie Lam before has issued an anonymous open letter to criticize Carrie Lam's methods, including her refusal during her tenure as Secretary for Development to produce a list of available lands to then Chief Executive Donald Tsang.

Carrie Lam said that during her tenure as Secretary for Development, all records of land are listed in budget proposals. Because land supply involves other departments and policies, it is reported to the Steering Committee for Land Supply headed by the Financial Secretary. She said that this anonymous open letter is a forgery.

- How many Administrative Officers know anything about a list of land supply during the Donald Tsang administration? It will be easy to identity this person.

- Why is this election season so boring? There is only one week left until voting time, and the dark materials so far are just so lame. There is nothing that hits home like an unauthorized basement dug out underneath the swimming pool.

- Next thing you know, we are going to have an anonymous report about Carrie Lam's aunt being a litter bug. Or something.

- Apple Daily says that there will be a mass exodus of Administrative Officers if Carrie Lam becomes Chief Executive, including Permanent Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Elizabeth Tse. When asked by the press, Tse said that she will remain at her post.

(SCMP) Criticism of ‘dull’ Carrie Lam smacks of sexism. By March 21, 2017.

It’s difficult to dig up dirt on someone whose personal life is as dull as Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor. The worst the opposition has done so far has been to accuse Lam’s husband of keeping a mistress in London. But wouldn’t that work more as a sympathy vote for Lam, regardless of the verity of the claim?

So now, the opposition has resorted to insinuating that the front runner in the chief executive race is a “control freak”, someone who doesn’t tolerate dissent and who thinks she is always right and everyone else is wrong.

Ming Pao and Apple Daily have run stories recently to such effect, quoting mostly anonymous sources. As an old hack, I can tell you that you can make anonymous sources say anything. That’s why they should be avoided where possible, and used only as a last resort.

Alas, in Hong Kong journalism, they often become the first resort, and the only sources on which a whole story is crafted.

But at least one story managed to quote Lau Sai-leung, a former adviser to the government’s Central Policy Unit think tank, for some unflattering sound bites about Lam. That’s where we got the “control freak” quote. So this is what it boils down to: Lam is used to getting her way and doesn’t listen, while election rival John Tsang Chun-wah is a nice guy.

As Tsang said during the most recent debate before 500-plus Election Committee members, Lam offered to apologise to civil service staff shortly before she quit as chief secretary. Why? Because she did something wrong? No, according to Tsang, Lam had not been a nice boss and might have offended some people during her tenure.

Do I detect a hint of sexism here? Male leaders who get their way are called tough and hands-on. Female ones, however, are just nasty women. But getting things your way is almost, by definition, a necessary trait of leadership. This could be good (when you are right) and bad (when you are wrong).

But being nice and willing to listen? Well, anyone can do that. Perhaps we still expect women to be empathetic. But if a woman is to become our next leader, I don’t want her to be nice or nurturing. I want her to be tough and get things done.

#028. (SCMP) By bringing students into her tent, Carrie Lam has opened their eyes. By Alex Lo. April 21, 2017.

Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor says she wants to bring more young people into the next government to bridge divisions in our society. So, as a first step, she hired more than a dozen student assistants to help run her campaign in the chief executive race.

Being inclusive? Giving young people a taste of political campaigning? Apparently not. First, the usual localist suspects rounded on several of Lam’s young assistants who had previously taken part in anti-government protests as traitors to the cause. Now, Lam’s campaign team is accused of paying the students too much – about HK$100 per hour. One student worked so many hours he ended up earning HK$20,000 in a month. Quickly, someone call the ICAC!

Somehow, I suspect this pseudo-controversy has little to do with their payment, but more with the fact that they had worked for Lam at all. Well, that just undermines the localist and pan-democratic narrative that Lam is as bad as outgoing chief executive Leung Chun-ying who just wants to divide our society and turn us against each other.

Localist luminaries Joshua Wong Chi-fung, Derek Lam Shun-hin and Billy Fung Jing-en have denounced those student assistants for working for Lam.

Among her young campaign helpers was Marco Li Chun-lam, who was previously a member of the defunct Scholarism that rallied against the government’s national education curriculum in 2012. Some members of the activist group GeNext, with which Li had close ties, were also part of Lam’s campaign team. Other campaign assistants included “Bon Bon” Chow Ting-pong, a former localist activist at City University; his former university comrade Alan Kwok Tung-wong; and another ex-student activist Yim Chak-hong, who was formerly at the Hang Seng Management College.

Are these young people turncoats? Hardly. Indeed, I find them wholly admirable. The young have a way of being intolerant and intransigent. Having been convinced of the rightness of their cause, those who disagree with them must be evil.

But changing one’s position does not necessarily mean betraying one’s principles; rather, it is a sign of intellectual and emotional maturity. It means learning to appreciate the position and arguments of the other side, that there is more than one way to look at things.

Maybe Lam is just being cynical. After all, Lyndon Johnson famously said it was “better to have them inside the tent p***ing out than outside p***ing in”.

Whatever her motive, I am all for bringing more young people inside the tent.

- The Umbrella Revolution is supposed to be an Epochal Revolution in which the young will overthrow the old. The battle line is drawn clearly at the age divide: Anyone on the wrong side of age 30 must not be trusted!

- By hiring these students for her campaign, Carrie Lam is trying to sow separatism and dissension among the young people of Hong Kong. The young people of Hong Kong know what the Truth is, and the Truth is the that Carrie Lam is a Hong Kong Communist Party stooge who is encouraging separatism and dissension. The only reason these particular young persons worked for Carrie Lam is the $Money$.

- All Carrie Lam does is create separatism and dissension. She cannot be trusted (since she is over 30 years old).

(The Berkeley Daily Planet) April 6, 2000.

The man who coined the phrase “Don’t trust anyone over 30” turned 60 years old Tuesday. 

Jack Weinberg uttered the phrase – which became one of the most memorable expressions of the turbulent 1960s era – during the height of the Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley. The Free Speech Movement was a struggle by students over the right to engage in political speech on campus, which helped to catalyze broader political activism on campuses around the country over student rights, civil rights and the Vietnam War. 

In a news release recently distributed by a Chicago public relations agency – owned by his wife, it should be noted – Weinberg says he made the statement primarily to get rid of a reporter who was bothering him. He doesn’t even regard the statement as the most important thing he’s ever said. 

“I was being interviewed by a newspaper reporter and he kept asking me who was ‘really’ behind the actions of students, implying that we were being directed behind the scenes by the Communists or some other sinister group,” Weinberg recalled. 

“I told him we had a saying in the movement that we don’t trust anybody over 30. It was a way of telling the guy to back off, that nobody was pulling our strings.” 

A columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle highlighted the quote and other newspapers across the country picked it up. 

“It went from journalist to journalist, then leaders in the movement started using it because they saw the extent it shook up the older generation,” Weinberg said. 

#029. (FringeBacker) The Support John Tsang CE Election Campaign raised HK$5,143,572 from 25,991 donors as of March 5, 2017. Meanwhile Carrie Lam has nothing to show. People are putting their money where their mouths are. This proves that John Tsang is infinitely more popular than Carrie Lam.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) April 24, 2017.

Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam has donated the surplus from her campaign fund, as well as some furniture and appliances from her campaign office, to seven charitable organisations.

Lam revealed on Monday that she raised around HK$18.7 million for her election campaign. Auditing showed the expenses for her election campaign totalled around HK$12.6 million. The upper limit for election expenses is set at HK$15.7 million by law.

She donated most of the surplus of HK$6.1 million to six small-scale NGOs. The organisations, which are exempt from tax under section 88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance, each received one million. Lam also gave HK$130,000 of the surplus funds, along with some furniture and electrical appliances, to the Salvation Army Hong Kong and Macau Command.

“These charitable organisations and their volunteers have been providing support and services to disadvantaged groups and the youth over the years. They are highly respectable and I fully support their work. I hope my donations can help to further enhance their services so that people in need can be better cared for,” she said in a statement.

The six include:

  • Youth Outreach, which works with at-risk youth;
  • Street Sleepers Action Committee Limited, which provides visits, meal deliveries and referral services to street sleepers;
  • Principal Chan Free Tutorial World Limited, which uses volunteer tutors to provide free one-to-one tutoring for children from underprivileged families;
  • Precious Blood Children’s Village, which provides emergency and temporary care for girls between three and 18 whose families cannot provide adequate care for them;
  • Hans Andersen Club Limited, which provides storytelling training and organises innovative parent-child activities for underprivileged families;
  • Breakthrough (Juvenile Development) Limited, founded by police officers in 1996, which provides sports and related services for at-risk youth to prevent juvenile delinquency.

Lam’s office said she submitted the required Return and Declaration of Election Expenses and Election Donations to the Registration and Electoral Office on Monday, in accordance with section 37 of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance.

- Carrie Lam sneakily raised $18.7 million. During the campaign period, she never disclosed the fact that she had been bought by powerful forces. She cannot be trusted to become Chief Executive!

- By contrast, John Tsang solved his money problem fairly and squarely with a $3 million loan from an offshore company registered in the British Virgin Islands.

(SCMP) April 27, 2017.

Defeated chief executive candidate John Tsang Chun-wah had a secret supporter who loaned him HK$3 million from the start of his campaign before he received donations from others.

The person offered the loan to the former financial secretary through offshore company Prescill Holdings a day before Tsang announced his election bid in January, records released by the Registration and Electoral Office on Thursday revealed. Tsang’s office declined to disclose the identity of the lender.

“We needed the bridging loan to pay the rent in Hopewell Centre in the beginning,” Tsang’s aide Julian Law Wing-chung said on Thursday. “The person chose to lend it through a BVI company. The market rate was charged for interests.”

Tsang repaid the sum together with an interest of HK$10,600, charged from a 3 per cent per annum rate, to the company in early March.

Prescill Holdings, registered in the British Virgin Islands and inactive since 2002, reported its Hong Kong address as 12th floor, Harbour Centre in Wan Chai, according to the Offshore Leaks Database maintained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

Before 2002, the Hong Kong address was occupied by tycoon Marjorie Yang Mun-tak’s Esquel Enterprises, the annual return filed by Esquel a year earlier showed. The company was later moved one floor up.

Law would not confirm whether Yang was the lender. Yang is among 204 people who each donated more than HK$1,000 to Tsang. She gave HK$250,000 under her name.

Dubbed the “Cotton Princess” because of the size of her family business, Yang and Tsang have known each other since their undergraduate years at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the United States.

While bankrolling Tsang, Yang nominated Lam as a bloc with fellow deputies to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.

#030. Before and After

(HKG Pao) August 28, 2017.

During the election period, Carrie Lam's Facebook routinely receives tens of thousands of ANGRY's for her posts. Now that she has been the Chief Executive for a couple of months, have those numbers gone up or down?

Here is the scorecard:

February 7, 2017: Joseph Yam, Carrie Lam and the people of Hong Kong. 1,827 LIKE's and 11,000 ANGRY's.

February 15, 2017: Yu Lai Ching-ping, Carrie Lam and the people of Hong Kong. 1,559 LIKE's and 5,002 ANGRY's.

July 22, 2017: Visit to the West Kowloon Station site. 1,147 LIKE's and 268 ANGRY's.

July 28, 2017: Visit to the iBakery workshop. 3,034 LIKE's and 268 ANGRY's.

August 25, 2017: Visit Shanghai-Hangzhou via High Speed Rail. 1,366 LIKE's and 260 ANGRY's.

Her support level has been consistent but the oppose level has dropped precipitously. Someone (John Tsang?) has stopped buying ANGRY's for Carrie Lam.

Since the 1990's, the Hong Kong government and the universities have promoted internationalization by admitting more non-local students. For example, at the Chinese University of Hong Kong during the 2015-2016 academic year, non-locals account for 12.1% of undergraduates and 50.2% of graduate students. More specifically, 1445 out of the 2002 non-local undergraduates students come from the mainland; 1432 out of the 1512 non-local graduate students come from the mainland. This means that the so-called internationalization is really mainlandization.

Our Student Union president asked vice-chancellor Joseph Shen directly and learned that CUHK is paying the difference between the $200,000+ education costs and the $120,000 tuition fees for non-local students. Non-local students have been accused of hogging local educational resources for a long time already.

(Wen Wei Po) January 20, 2017.

The Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union held a discussion forum on campus to discuss the issues of the ratio of mainland students at universities and the associated cultural issues. The invited discussants include Neo Democrats district councilor Roy Tam Hoi-pong, Hong Kong National Party spokesperson Jason Chow Ho-fai and former Scholarism spokesperson Tommy Cheung Sau-yin.

The forum went on for two hours. At the peak, there were ten students who hung around to watch. The forum began with Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union president Chow Shu-fung citing statistics to say that the ratio of mainlanders among non-local university students is high such that "internationalization" only means "mainlandization."

- "Internationalization" = "mainlandization"? According to the University Grants Commisttee, the percentage of mainlanders among all non-local students was 94% in 2005-2006 but is 72% in 2015-2016. So there has been an attempt to recruit more students from elsewhere.

Cheung Sau-yin said that the Chinese University of Hong Kong should accept fewer mainland students, so that more slots will be open for international students in order to further "internationalization." Cheung said that when Hong Kong students travel overseas as exchange students, they are required to have good local language skills. So if they go to the United Kingdom or the United States, they must speak good English; if they go to Japan, they must speak good Japanese; etc. In like manner, the Chinese University of Hong Kong should make the currently optional Cantonese courses compulsory for all non-local students, including both mainland and international students so that they can learn to melt into local culture.

Roy Tam Hoi-pong said that mainland students form the majority of graduate students at the various universities. Tam said that when universities accept graduates students, they should give priority to Hong Kong students.

- According to the data at the Legislative Council, the acceptance rate for non-locals at the university graduates schools is about 10% compared to 25% for locals. The reason why the graduate schools have so many mainland students has to do with the total number of applicants. Relatively few Hong Kong students want to do graduate studies, so that even lowering admission standards won't increase the proportion of Hong Kong graduate students significantly.

Chow Ho-fai said that many mainland students considered Hong Kong to be their launching pads for overseas studies upon graduation. After they graduate, they won't stay around to work in Hong Kong. Therefore Chow said that they should be increasing tuition fees for non-local students. Cheung Sau-yin said that increasing tuition fees may not stop the flow of mainland students, but it may stop some international students from coming.

Here are some reactions from other CUHK students:

- Mr. Lee (fourth-year mathematics): It is rash to say that reducing mainland students will increase internationalization. University admission should be based upon the quality of the student, not the place of origin. Most mainland students who come to Hong Kong are elites with excellent grades, and they are here as a result of fair competition.

- Cheryl (fourth-year engineering): Adjustment of mainland representation can be considered, but not for political reasons. "At this time, the quality of the mainland students are very good. Hong Kong is not the only place that they can go to study at."

- Cheryl, Mr. Chen (mainland exchange students) and Mr. Ao (mainland graduates student): At present, many non-local students are taking the Cantonese courses for the sake of interest and convenience. They believe that this is helpful, but they have reservations about the courses being made "compulsory."

- Mr. Cheung (third-year computer science): If you make the Cantonese courses compulsory rather than optional, you may achieve the opposite effect. Learning the Cantonese language itself won't make you melt into the local culture. Culture is not something that can be forced upon people.

Internet comments:

- Copycat of Donald Trump's America First

- In his inaugural speech, The Donald said: "From this day forward, it's going to be only America first. America first. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We will follow two simple rules: buy American and hire American."

For the universities in Hong Kong, they can easily adopt xenophobia and only accept Hong Kong undergraduate students. The international ratings agencies will downgrade their standings with respect to universities elsewhere. This will affect their ability to attract prominent scholars to come to Hong Kong. Worst yet, they won't have enough graduate students to keep the universities functioning as research/teaching institutions.

- I am completely for "Buy Hong Kong and hire Hong Kong." Let's start by expelling the 300,000+ Filipina/Indonesian domestic helpers. It is about time that Kong girls should do their own housework.

- I would like to get a high-paying job in the banking/financial industry in Hong Kong. Unfortunately, most jobs are taken by foreigners just because they speak English whereas my English sucks and I only have a high school education. So I am completely for "Buy Hong Kong and hire Hong Kong." P.S. I expect to receive perks such as a company-rented apartment, a company car, family healthcare, membership to the Hong Kong Country Club/Fanling Golf Course, chauffeurs, international school for the kids, etc. I don't need home leave like foreigners do, so this will benefit the company.

- (Wen Wei Po) January 12, 2017. Among the universities in Hong Kong, three (Chinese University of Hong Kong, Education University and Open University) plan to raise tuition fees for mainland students. At CUHK, the tuition fees for mainland students will increase by 20.8% from $120,000 per year to $145,000 per year. However, CUHK is still $1,000 per year behind leader HKU.

- Why do the universities need graduate students? Because graduate students are cheap laborers who conduct the research for the professors, teach undergraduate classes, tutor undergraduate students about lectures and homework, and grade the homework/exams. Without graduate students, the professors would have to do all those things themselves and never find time to do advanced research, write papers/books/proposals and attend conferences.

Given that the universities need graduate students, where do you find them? You post an announcement that you are accepting graduate school applications. The applicants must be suitably qualified, as evidenced by Bachelor's degree or higher, Grade Point Average (GPA), GRE/GMAT scores, letters of recommendation, interviews, etc. Admitting unqualified people will only cause you grief later on when they cannot perform their studies and/or their research/teaching activities.

You take a look at the pool of qualified applicants and you see that mainlanders form the majority. If you have a Hong Kong First policy, you can lower the qualification standards for local applicants. But the numbers are such that you cannot meet your quotas even if you admit all Hong Kong applicants regardless of qualification.

The fact is that a graduate degree is not highly esteemed in Hong Kong. Getting a masters degree only means losing one year of earnings without enhancing yourself in the eyes of society at large. Getting a doctorate means losing even more years of earnings. How many Hongkongers will apply to the doctoral program at the Chinese University of Hong Kong's Faculty of Arts? Besides, if a Hongkonger thinks that he/she is good enough for a doctorate in Science or Engineering, he would be better off going overseas.

- It is true that there are scholarships. For example, at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Postgraduate Studentships are available in most Graduate Divisions for full-time students registered for research degree programmes. Awardees of studentships will have the duty to assist in the teaching and research work of their Graduate Division. The Postgraduate Studentship was around $15,600 to $16,140 for 2016-17.

There is also a Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme: The Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme, established by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council (RGC) in 2009, aims at attracting the best and brightest students from all over the world to pursue their PhD studies in Hong Kong. The Fellowship provides a monthly stipend of HK$20,000 (approximately US$2,565) and a conference travel allowance of HK$10,000 (approximately US$1,280) per year for the awardees for a maximum period of three years.

- Clearly any scholarship or fellowship won't pay for the entire bill of a graduate degree. A graduate student will need financial support from his/her family or others.

- The answer is plain to see. If you award every Hong Kong graduate student $20,000 a month without means-testing or ability testing, they will come in droves. After all, the starting salary of a Hong Kong university graduate is only about $14,000 per month. Who would not welcome spending a few more years to hea?

Where is the money going to come from? The Hong Kong Foreign Exchange Reserves, of course.

- How can we make this happen? We begin by reforming the university so that all members of the university council will be either students, teachers or staff members. No outsiders will be allowed, especially those appointed by the Chief Executive (as Chancellor) from society at large. And then the university council will vote according to the preferences of these members.

- Eh, the universities get their funding through the University Grants Committee, which ensures value for money for taxpayers. Letting special interest groups shower public money on themselves may not be so 'cool'.

- For example, why would someone from the United States or India come to the Chinese University of Hong Kong to study for a MPhil degree in Materials Science and Engineering at the School of Science? Your applicant pool is going to loaded with mainlanders.

- And be compelled to take courses in Cantonese and Hong Kong culture as part of the curriculum? That would be hard on Americans and Indians, but relatively easy for mainlanders who already know the language (albeit different writing/speaking systems). But many mainland Chinese students already know other dialects (such as Shanghai, Suzhou, Sichuan, Fujian, etc) besides putonghua so picking up another one is easy.

- There does not seem to be any compelling conclusions coming out of this discussion forum. You cannot lower admission standards in the name of Hong Kong First. You cannot discriminate between mainlanders versus other non-locals for political reasons. You cannot shut off all international students. You cannot compel all non-locals to learn Cantonese. You cannot this. You cannot that. So what can you do?

- This is the whole problem with Localism. All the abstract slogans sound so good: "Locals should determine what happens locally" etc. But as soon as you get down to the nitty-gritty details, you find yourself constrained in all sorts of ways.

An existing system is there for a variety of reasons. It is rare that an existing system is completely unjustified and unreasonable. So if you design an alternate system, you will have to make tradeoffs in which some people gain while others lose. You can't always expect to find Pareto-optimal solutions.

- Great leadership means having the courage to screw some people and saying "Fuck you!" when they complain. Of course, the smart thing is to pick on the weak and vulnerable ones. P.S. Don't forget to demonize them so that it is their fault instead of yours!

(Harbour Times) Full speech of John Tsang's CE election declaration. January 19, 2017.

My Dear Friends,

It was during a time of great uncertainty some thirty four years ago, when China and Britain started negotiations on Hong Kong’s future, that I returned with my young family to Hong Kong from the United States, and joined the civil service in this great city of ours.

I have been fortunate to have held in my 34 years of public service a good number of positions in a wide range of policy areas that impact on the people of Hong Kong. So much so that I dare to say: I know Hong Kong.

I have big dreams for this city of ours, and together, I know we can overcome the many challenges that stand in our way.

Hong Kong is a great city operating under the concept of ‘One Country Two Systems’. This is a unique framework that best suits our development. I have witnessed the tremendous clout that our nation now wields on the world stage, and I have no doubt that Hong Kong will become the leading international financial centre on the back of the economic strength of China, and visionary initiatives, such as ‘One Belt One Road’ and FTAAP, that are at the beginning stages of implementation.

But we do need to check the disruptive elements that are threatening to curb our growth – the anger, the polarization, the occasional irrational talks of independence and the confrontation that has torn our society apart. Hong Kong never speaks with only one tongue, and has not followed only one dictum; Hong Kong does not just serve the business sector or the labour sector; Hong Kong does not just serve those born in the 50’s or those in the 80’s. Hong Kong is all of that.

The situation in Hong Kong today cannot be resolved by mere force and aggression; it requires restraint and moderation, on the part of everyone. We must pay tribute to diversity, inclusiveness and rationality in our society, the core values that provide a common ground for all the people of Hong Kong, and which the Government is duty-bound to preserve.

We became a great city because of our core values which include the rule of law, fairness, integrity, freedom, democracy, diversity, inclusiveness and caring for others. As the custodian of these values and strengths, the Government must refrain from undue interference, and provide at the appropriate juncture the necessary conditions for our economy to become even more balanced and more diverse.

We became a great city because we have the flexibility to adjust. We believe that market economy is an effective tool to create wealth and allocate resources, but markets can fail. Speaking from experience, we can make good use of the market to serve society.

We cannot be blinded to the economic problems and wealth disparity that we face today. Instead of acting against market forces, our mission is to remedy its pitfalls and improve its implementation, helping those who have fallen through the safety net, and ensuring a decent livelihood for those who are willing to contribute to the success of Hong Kong.

A great Hong Kong also means that its people lead a healthy and respectable life. The present government’s diagnosis of the housing problem is largely correct, and I wish to state clearly my intention to keep producing more land and more housing to tackle the problems of housing shortage, ageing buildings and high property prices. These issues place a huge burden on our people. They are also stunting the growth of business in Hong Kong.

As we develop, we need also to keep in mind the necessity to preserve the priceless natural environment of Hong Kong, and the heritage buildings that embody our collective memories. I shall consider all possible means, including large scale reclamation and urban renewal, to produce more land and to enable Hong Kong citizens to enjoy better living conditions.

A great Hong Kong also means that the people here should be able to lead happy lives, and see Hong Kong as their home for generations to come. We are one of the longest living people in the world, but mere longevity is not good enough. We are told by various surveys that the people of Hong Kong are not happy, and that may explain some people’s wish to emigrate. It is my sincere wish to change these attitudes, and ensure that all the people of Hong Kong can lead fulfilled and happy lives.

A great Hong Kong would be a place brimming with vigour and vibrancy. It would be a place where young people are able to see a future for themselves, a place where they wish to raise a family and a place where their hard work would be duly rewarded.

I look forward to hearing their ambitions, whatever they are – starting a world-class business; pursuing further studies; or even dabbling in farming. And I wish to help them map out a blueprint for their future. I may not live long enough to see it all, but I can help lay the foundation for it.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not an eloquent speaker like many of you out there. But I do have a gift of listening and pondering deeply what other people say to me. People who have known me all these years find me easy to work with, and I find myself always surrounded by people with diverse talents and experiences.

Today I am standing before you, the 7.35 million people of Hong Kong, not as a single person , but as a team of committed Hong Kong citizens with a common vision: to work together to make our city an even greater place to live.

Looking back on my life, my greatest realization is that confrontation, pessimism and prejudice are not inevitable. What we need is to rebuild trust, reestablish unity and rekindle hope. These are the three keys which are set out on the backdrop behind me. With the right measure of good will, faith and hard work, we can find the solutions, and we can write the history that we want to see.

What I fear most is that the confrontation and conflicts that we have seen in our society recently have eroded permanently our courage and confidence to seek solutions. But, looking back on history, darkness always gives way to light – if only we could hold on to good will and hope.

Is it a difficult target to aim for? Of course it is. You may choose not to trust me to do it alone, but you must trust the collective faith and good will of all of us. Where others see a depressing situation, I see courage in changing the course of history; where others see a society torn apart, I see dawn at the end of a long dark night. If I can see a future for Hong Kong, so can we all.

I have done a great deal of soul-searching of late, and I can genuinely tell you that I am more determined now than ever to serve this city of ours. In fact more determined than what had urged me to return to Hong Kong in 1982.

Ladies and gentlemen, I declare I am running for Chief Executive of Hong Kong.

Internet comments:

- If an election campaign is about coalition building, then the biggest piece of the coalition must come from the China bloc. It is simply the largest special interest group out there.

 (Wen Wei Po) January 9, 2017. In the Bauhinia magazine interview, Wang Guangya listed four basic criteria for the HKSAR chief executive: The chief executive, he said, should “love China, love Hong Kong,” someone who Beijing can “trust,” who is capable of governing and who is supported by the Hong Kong people, in that order.

You should therefore read John Tsang's speech to see how he addresses the Four Criteria. It is not up to him to say that Beijing can trust him, or that he is capable of governing, or that he is supported by the people of Hong Kong. With respect to whether he "loves China, loves Hong Kong", he comes up with this:

We do need to check the disruptive elements that are threatening to curb our growth – the anger, the polarization, the occasional irrational talks of independence and the confrontation that has torn our society apart. Hong Kong never speaks with only one tongue, and has not followed only one dictum; Hong Kong does not just serve the business sector or the labour sector; Hong Kong does not just serve those born in the 50’s or those in the 80’s. Hong Kong is all of that.

The situation in Hong Kong today cannot be resolved by mere force and aggression; it requires restraint and moderation, on the part of everyone. We must pay tribute to diversity, inclusiveness and rationality in our society, the core values that provide a common ground for all the people of Hong Kong, and which the Government is duty-bound to preserve.

We became a great city because of our core values which include the rule of law, fairness, integrity, freedom, democracy, diversity, inclusiveness and caring for others. As the custodian of these values and strengths, the Government must refrain from undue interference, and provide at the appropriate juncture the necessary conditions for our economy to become even more balanced and more diverse.

With due respect, this is vacuous.

- (EJ Insight) John Tsang has to prove he is the real deal. By Wong On-yin. January 18, 2017.

Are all pro-democracy voters supposed to vote for former financial secretary John Tsang as the next chief executive? The answer is absolutely not.

Unless you belong to the washed-up pan-democrats or are paid to write political propaganda for them, you are by no means under any obligation to vote for the favorite of the pan-democrats.

They no longer represent the vast majority of the public anymore.

Having spent years living and studying in the US, John Tsang might come across as being a rather open-minded political figure compared with mediocre lackeys in CY Leung’s administration.

But let’s not forget he has never been, or probably will never be, a leader that has ever committed himself to fighting for genuine democracy for Hong Kong.

As such, Beijing’s final approval of Tsang’s resignation and its green light to his CE bid might have come as a piece of good news and a shot in the arm for the pan-democrats who are secretly rooting for Tsang, but for the rest of us, there is nothing much to celebrate.

In my opinion, the only criteria for the 325 pro-democracy members of the Election Committee for judging a candidate should be firstly, whether or not what he or she did in the past is in line with democratic principles, and secondly, whether he or she dares to stand up and be counted on the issue of universal suffrage once elected even if that might risk angering Beijing.

And the earlier they pledge to commit themselves to fighting for democracy and put forward a clear roadmap to achieve that goal, the more reliable and trustworthy they will be.

Any belated promise of universal suffrage made by any candidate may only be a gesture of political expedience in order to cheat members of the Election Committee out of their votes.

So far retired judge Woo Kwok-hing is the only candidate who has spelled out a crystal-clear stance on our democratization process and is also the only one who has put forward a detailed and feasible roadmap toward universal suffrage.

In contrast, none of the other CE hopefuls has had the guts to touch on the issue, let alone put it on top of their campaign agenda.

Apart from pledging to fight for genuine democracy, another important criterion to measure a candidate is whether he or she would be willing to promise that they will, once elected, call an immediate halt to the legal challenges against the legitimacy of the four localist lawmakers who were elected to our legislature by about 20 percent of our eligible voters.

Some might doubt whether it is suitable to ask all candidates, particularly John Tsang, to promise to stop going after the four at this delicate moment because that might put him at a huge disadvantage against other pro-establishment contenders and undermine his campaign.

My answer to those who have such a doubt is: ever since the Umbrella Revolution, hundreds of thousands of our brave and fearless citizens have been taking to the streets to raise their demand for democracy on behalf of their fellow citizens and to stand up against tyranny even at the risk of criminal liability.

Therefore, promising to listen to the people’s political aspirations and stop persecuting opposition lawmakers is probably the barest minimum any decent candidate with the least sense of social conscience should do, even though it will certainly upset Beijing.

If John Tsang, the man who has claimed to be deeply concerned about his people and his beloved city, won’t even take such a minor risk, then how could he convince the 325 pro-democracy members of the Election Committee and the general public that he is the one we can rely on to create a better Hong Kong in the next five years?

- Short of a successful armed revolution, the path to democratization is through Basic Law Article 159:

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress.

The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region.

Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views.

No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong.

There is no need to repeat how much you want to see democratization happen. You should be explaining how you can make it happen. Specifically, how can you get all the listed parties in Article 159 and those not listed to come to an agreement? What is that agreement?

- "I promise that I will do my best to find a solution that everybody will like" is no good. If and when it collapses, you will simply blame everybody else except yourself.

- What is Woo Kwok Hing's magical solution?

(Hong Kong Free Press) December 4, 2016.

In 2007, Beijing promised universal suffrage for Hong Kong’s chief executive elections from 2017. In 2014, different political groups campaigned for their ideas on universal suffrage as the government prepared the reform package. Despite demands for greater electoral freedom, Beijing held that a 1,200-member nomination committee would vet candidates before a popular vote.

Beijing’s decision sparked the 79-day pro-democracy Occupy protests, and the reform package incorporating the decision was eventually voted down in the legislature last year. The current administration said that it would not consider restarting the reform process.

Woo previously said that he disagreed with Beijing’s decision on the political reform. He told HKFP that he is now trying to reconcile the differences between the pro-Beijing and pro-democracy camps.

“What has driven them apart so far, I think, originated from the failure of the political reform,” he said. “That’s why I would like to persuade people to come to their senses in a way to be able to agree to something which would bring up political reform again.”

Woo suggested the nomination committee could be expanded to be as representative as allowed by the constitutional framework.

Article 45 of the Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong’s leader shall be nominated by a “broadly representative nominating committee.” In 2014, political groups could not reach a consensus on what constitutes a “broadly representative” committee, with some pro-democracy groups advocating “civil nomination,” the idea that the committee would consist of all eligible voters, thereby effectively preventing any vetting in the nomination process.

Woo said civil nomination is not possible within the constitutional framework. However, he said, “there is a lot of space for one to manoeuvre. The 1,200 people [on the nomination committee] are being elected by an electorate of 250,000 people or companies. If you broaden that to one million voters, that means you broaden it by three or four times altogether.”

“Then it will become a vastly, broadly representative nominating committee. On that basis, I think, something can be achieved.”

The candidate said a number of pro-democracy politicians had told him that they would be willing to replace civil nomination with a one-million-electorate committee. “Even the pro-establishment camp – they have no strong objection to this,” he said.

This is total failure to learn from history. With respect to the government's proposal, the United States and the United Kingdom said to take the money and run because it is a clear improvement over what we've got. However, the radical wing of the pan-democratic camp said: "It was either civil nomination of Chief Executive or veto!" They held a mini-referendum and made the result binding on all the pan-democratic legislative councilors. Veto they did! If they took the deal, we would be voting for the Chief Executive on a one-person-one-vote basis already.

Woo Kwok Hing's proposal which is just an expansion of the base of the August 31st resolution is not civil nomination. The radical wing will continue to insist on having the "universal standard" of civil nomination of Chief Executive, and they are going to whip all the pan-dems into line.

P.S. Of course, this 'universal standard' of civil nomination of Chief Executive is done in 32 countries out of about 200 countries in the world. It does not include the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Australia, India, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, etc. The only major country that has civil nomination is Russia.

- What is John Tsang's magical solution?

(HKG Pao)

During the Q&A, the Apple Daily reporter said: "The pan-democratic electors are saying that their support is contingent on the candidates opposing the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee. So is John Tsang opposed to the August 31st resolution?" John Tsang murmured and said: "Actually, the August 31st resolution is not our position. The August 31st resolution was brought over from mainland China. It is almost a ... we really have to deal with the problem."

As everybody knows, the National People's Congress Standing Committee is the supreme legislative body in the People's Republic of China. With 34 years of government experience under his belt, John Tsang actually said that "the resolution was brought over from mainland China and Hong Kong will have to deal with it"?

So how exactly is he going to "deal with it" once he becomes Chief Executive? Everybody knows that John Tsang's English is better than his Chinese, and he slips up occasionally in Chinese. But was this a slip of the tongue on this most important occasion of his life? Or did he really mean it? And is that why the Central Government took 35 days to approve his resignation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrgsllzRjEg

(Wen Wei Po) Q&A

Q: What is your position towards the August 31st resolution?

John Tsang: The August 31st resolution is not our position. It was brought in from the mainland. This is something that he will have to deal with. If the political environment is not changed, then it is irresponsible to start this (constitutional reform) without preparations. It is not worth doing without the appropriate conditions.

(Wen Wei Po)

At the time of the constitutional vote over the August 31st constitutional reform, John Tsang was the third-ranking member of the government's team. He took part in pushing for the proposed bill. Today, John Tsang came out and told us: "The August 31st resolution is not our position. It was brought in from the mainland."

Under One Country Two Systems, the Central Government has the final say on constitutional development in Hong Kong. The National People's Congress Standing Committee is the ultimate authority which the Hong Kong SAR government must follow. The proposed bill followed the August 31st resolution framework of the NPCSC. As the third-ranking member of the government's team, John Tsang said that the August 31st resolution was "not our position"? Is he denying the authority of the Central Government?

- Here is the salvage mission on the day after ...

(NOW TV) January 20, 2017.

John Tsang said that re-starting the constitutional reform depends on the social atmosphere. If re-started, it will still be based upon the August 31st resolution of National People's Congress Standing Committee. Different factions on the political spectrum need to compromise.

Short summary: John Tsang fails Wong On-yin's test, because his solution is to have the pan-democrats compromise and accept the August 31st resolution of the NPCSC.

(Bastille Post) January 21, 2017. John Tsang did not mention the August 31st resolution in his prepared speech. During the Q&A afterwards, a reporter asked a question about the August 31st resolution and John Tsang did not respond. Only after a second reporter repeated the question did he blurt out that the August 31st resolution is "not our position" because "it was brought over from the mainland." Why did he change his tune completely on radio the next day? Because under Article 45 Basic Law: "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government." It is not enough to win the election; it is still necessary to "be appointed by the Central People's Government." If John Tsang makes it clear that he is going to brush aside the August 31st resolution, his appointment may be delayed just like his resignation or it may not even ever happen.

- Article 104 Basic Law: "When assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China." For example, here is Donald Tsang being sworn in by Chinese president Hu Jintao. Until the election winner is sworn in, he is not Chief Executive yet. And the Basic Law does not stipulate when the oath must be administered (30 days? 6 months? 5 years?).

(RTHK) Meanwhile legislative councilor Ip Kin-yuen said that Democracy 300+ will discuss which candidates to nominate and the main factor will be the stance on re-starting the constitutional reform. Ip hopes that the next Chief Executive will have the courage and wisdom to lead the people of Hong Kong to break out of the August 31st framework and head towards genuine universal suffrage. [Yes, read that: "break out of the August 31st framework."]

(Hong Kong Free Press) January 20, 2017.

During his announcement of his candidacy for chief executive on Thursday, Tsang said he would need to see whether the political situation has changed since 2014 before considering whether to table a new political reform package if he became the city’s next leader.

“If it hasn’t changed, if it remains the same, we are just banging our heads against the wall – that would not serve any purpose. What we must do is to really have a proper dialogue with all the different stakeholders to see if this is the time,” he said.

The former finance chief clarified his position on an RTHK programme on Friday. He said that since Beijing’s decision in 2014 was made by China’s top legislature – the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress – the ruling must be the “basis and starting point” for any discussions on Hong Kong’s political reform.

Asked if he feared that his position might cost him support from the pan-democrats, Tsang said: “I believe everyone will handle the situation rationally. The first step is to get everyone to discuss this issue… We need to have a realistic outlook and decide on our goal.”

Noting the wide political spectrum in Hong Kong, Tsang said people with different views should be prepared to make compromises and accept that Hong Kong is a diverse society. The first step to achieving this objective is to rebuild trust in society, he added.

Tsang’s opponent Woo Kwok-hing criticised Tsang on Thursday for not having a stronger position on political reform.

“John, time to stop slacking off,” the retired judge said. “My strongest impression of your press conference is that you are too soft on the political reform issue and you are not living up to public expectations. You have failed to answer the strong demand for universal suffrage.”

“The first and foremost mission of the post-CY Leung administration is to fully and accurately convey the views of Hongkongers, restart the political reform process and mend the rift in society.”

Woo previously said that if he became chief executive, his main goal would be to end Hong Kong’s political stalemate by pushing through a political reform package that is acceptable to the majority of society.

(Bastille Post) With respect to constitutional reform, John Tsang said that the August 31st resolution does not represent the position of the people of Hong Kong but was brought over from the mainland and now Hong Kong has to deal with it. If the political environment is the same as in 2014, then it would be as futile as banging the head against the wall. It will only cause more unrest in society and therefore irresponsible. In so saying, he is practically promising that he won't re-start constitutional reform.

With respect to Article 23, he said that it is the constitutional duty of the government to establish Article 23. But the issue is highly controversial, so the government can only push forward when the social atmosphere is right.

With respect to Hong Kong independence, he said that the advocates of Hong Kong independence are hurting the feelings of the people of Hong Kong. He said that Hong Kong can be better only if it embraces China and faces the world.

According to a political analyst, Tsang's positions on these issues are indistinguishable from those of Carrie Lam. However, the pan-democratic electors are still going to support Tsang. Why? Because they care more about picking the right person than sticking to the right principles of democracy.

- That should come as no surprise. The pan-democrats are always for rule of law. Always, except when one of their own breaks the law. It is about who they are, not what they do.

- LOOK7s Facebook:

Yellow Ribbon Pigs:
John Tsang is going to be better than Carrie Lam.
Did he support the August 31st resolution and Article 23 before?
Who Fucking Cares~
I TOLD 7 YOU SO (note: "7" means "fucking" in Cantonese)

- So why is John Tsang better than Carrie Lam when their positions on the key issues about democratization are indistinguishable from each other? It is because John Tsang is promising that his government will be a Do Nothing (無為) government.  You want to Occupy Central again? Fine, John Tsang will do nothing to deter you, etc.

- (Headline Daily) John Tsang wants Hong Kong to 休養生息 (to heal, recover, recuperate, rehabilitate). That means he will have to let some old scores (such as Occupy Central, Umbrella Revolution, Fishball Revolution, the DQ4) be forgotten. Of course, the pan-democrats will cheer him on.

- The essence of the philosophy of John Tsang is contained in the Cantonese word hea.

1. Do something in a lazy way.
2. Do something meaningless to kill time.

- Daniel Cheung's Facebook

Hong Kong gets John Tsang today solely on the efforts of a group of valiant resisters. Whether they marched into the streets or make their contributions in their own domains, whether you approve or disapprove of their actions, whether they are messy, chaotic, noisy and pre-occupied with in-fighting, they have more or less increased the price of governance. Their actions over the past three years have caused the authorities to become wary. Xi Jinping is facing the imminent meltdown of China and the simultaneous attacks by the United States and Russia. Therefore he has to re-arranged things in Hong Kong. He is lessening his authoritarian grip and putting on a show. He might even introduce fake constitutional reform and fake democracy. Although the messy, chaotic and noisy resisters can't totally succeed, they serve key functions on minor things. However, the accomplishments stop here. If we want a breakthrough, we have to clean up the messiness, chaos, noise and in-fighting. We must be more mature in hearts and  minds, and we must improve our methods.

- Three years of valiant resistance has succeed in ... bringing us John Tsang as our next Chief Executive! Conversely, without three years of valiant resistance, John Tsang would still be stuck in Nowheresville.

- If the only success that can be claimed after three years of valiant resistance is the Coming of John Tsang, I would suggest Il faut cultiver notre jardin (Voltaire, Candide). That is, we should lay down the bricks and go home to watch the grass grow -- it is more exciting and rewarding!

- The tone of this treatise is actually contemptuous of valiant resistance. The author thinks that valiant resistance is immature and has to be replaced by a more mature and better improved approach. What might that be? He does not say and I cannot guess.

- Someone who detests messiness, chaos, noise and infighting is obviously suffering from Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD).

This is a personality disorder characterized by a general pattern of concern with orderliness, perfectionism, excessive attention to details, mental and interpersonal control, and a need for control over one's environment. Some people with OCPD, but not all, show an obsessive need for cleanliness.

OCPD is associated with certain Yellow Ribbon symptoms:

Perception of own and others' actions and beliefs tend to be polarised (i.e., "right" or "wrong", with little or no margin between the two) for people with this disorder. As it might be expected, such rigidity places strain on interpersonal relationships, with frustration sometimes turning into anger and even violence. This is known as disinhibition.

People with OCPD often tend to general pessimism and/or underlying form(s) of depression. This can at times become so serious that suicide is a risk.

- (EJ Insight) Debunking the myth about John Tsang. By Wong On-yin. January 25, 2017.

As Leung Chun-ying has declared that he will not seek a second term, the pan-democrats have lost a talking point and they can no longer milk Leung’s unpopularity for all it’s worth.

Desperate to find another rallying point to stabilize their support base and to make sure they still have a say in the upcoming CE election, the washed-up pan-democrats once again resorted to a familiar trick — identify a common enemy or a perceived threat in order to rally the supporters and swing public opinion their way, so that they can at least maintain some level of influence on the election agenda or even the outcome.

And this time their new target is former chief secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor.

In recent weeks the pan-democratic propaganda apparatuses have been working at full throttle in an all-out smear campaign against Lam in an attempt to demonize her and portray her as “just another CY Leung” and “another figurehead handpicked by Beijing”.

In the meantime, the pan-democrats are also working aggressively behind the scenes and rooting for their favorite candidate, former financial secretary John Tsang Chun-wah, and twisting the arm of the 325 pro-democracy Election Committee members into endorsing him.

So, what should the 325 pro-democracy members of the Election Committee and perhaps the vast majority of the public do in order to make sure Hong Kong won’t be subject to another 5 years of woes?

Well my advice is simple and clear: never buy into the nonsense pitched by the pan-democrats again, particularly the notion that “John Tsang vs Carrie Lam” is “Good vs Evil”. It is because in my opinion, Tsang is just as evil as Lam in basically every aspect.

Tsang is just as eager as Lam in kissing up to Beijing at the expense of our city’s interest, and both regard themselves as elites and are equally condescending. Besides, they are both equally callous when it comes to understanding the misery of the underprivileged in our society and also don’t have a vision for Hong Kong when it comes to pressing issues like housing.

And worse still, neither of them is willing to commit themselves to fighting for true democracy for Hong Kong at the risk of angering Beijing. Lam and Tsang won’t even touch upon the issue of whether they will call a halt to the government’s legal challenge against four localist lawmakers once they are elected, let alone reopen political reform process.

Perhaps the only advantage that Tsang has over Lam is that he is more polished, diplomatic and a lot better at pulling publicity stunts in order to boost his popularity and public image. But at the end of the day, they are just two equally selfish and cunning bureaucrats who are fiercely competing with each other for Beijing’s favor.

I believe that in order to make a difference and maximize their influence, the 325 pro-democracy members of the Election Committee must exercise discretion and vote in tandem under all circumstances. If they stay united and act together, they will be a force that even Beijing will not be able to ignore.

Now, are there really no other feasible choices apart from Tsang who can bring about change? Of course not! Let’s remind ourselves that there is still the retired judge Woo Kwok-hing.

In fact if you compare the election platforms of Tsang and Woo, you may find that Woo is indeed more pro-democracy. Also, I do not think he will have any difficulty in getting the endorsement of at least 150 Election Committee members in order to become an official candidate.

I believe that as long as Woo plays it safe and doesn’t make any silly mistake during his campaign, he could benefit from the tussle between Tsang and Lam which is bound to get uglier, and emerge as the ultimate dark horse in the CE race.

- Yes, with 325 pan-democratic votes in hand, Woo Kwok-hing will roar in and become our next Chief Executive? Well, it takes at least 600 votes to win. Where do the other 275 votes come from? The Rural Affairs Council? The Federation of Trade Unions? DAB? Please make a list of the likely others.

- And explain: For example, why would the Rural Affairs Council support Woo Kwok-hing? What is in it for them?  Hint: Don't preach rule of law on behalf of Judge Woo, because many of the rural squires are illegal squatters who have built hundreds of thousands of illegal structures in New Territories.

(Hong Kong Free Press) January 19, 2017.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying’s question and answer session at the Legislative Council was prematurely cut short on Thursday as pro-democracy lawmakers staged a protest against the president’s decision to kick out a colleague.

Lawmaker Lau Siu-lai was questioning Leung over the universal pension scheme. She played an audio clip of Leung at a 2011 forum on her phone where he said that the scheme was “worth doing.” On Wednesday, shortly after his Policy Address, Leung said that he never made a promise regarding the scheme in his 2012 election manifesto.

LegCo President Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen then told Lau to stop twice, but Lau said she could not hear what he said the second time. Leung demanded she leave the chamber for disorderly conduct. Security guards then attempted to pull her away from the chamber.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-KEHnHeT-w

Her pro-democracy camp colleagues then blocked the door to stop her from being removed. Lau fell to the ground, before her colleagues formed a human chain to protect her. As the situation escalated, Andrew Leung adjourned the meeting.

Lau told reporters that she did not see any problem in playing a clip of Leung Chun-ying which was related to the question she was asking.

In fact, in his election manifesto, Leung promised to use fiscal reserves to “to meet future expenditures arising from the ageing population such as medical and healthcare expense and pension payments.”

Lau said she was disappointed by Andrew Leung’s judgement: “Can this legislature truly have a fair discussion? Is it that they will do anything just to avoid [Leung’s] embarrassment?”

Pro-democracy camp lawmakers said the requirement for disorderly conduct was judged subjectively. “It’s absolutely unreasonable, you can tell that is a blatant exercise of his power, amounting to abuse of power, I would call that political censorship on the part of Andrew Leung,” said lawmaker Claudia Mo.

The pro-Beijing lawmakers claimed Lau was “clearly violating the rules of procedure.” “If everyone brings a recorder to play clips or bring a loudspeaker… Is this the chamber of the LegCo, or a street market?” asked Wong Kwok-kin.

The camp’s convener Martin Liao said such a dismissal of lawmakers has happened in the past. He cited the case when “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung was kicked out for using a loudspeaker in December 2012. “There was already a precedent,” he said.

League of Social Democrats lawmaker Leung Kwok-hung was also removed from the chamber earlier in the meeting after he attempted to throw a “rat” protest prop featuring Financial Secretary Paul Chan’s face.

Internet comments:

- You show up in the morning at 1030am for a meeting at work. As soon as the meeting starts, you get up and make a nuisance of yourself. You are kicked out of the meeting. You leave. Your job is done for the day. In this way, you earn $95,180 per month. Is there a better job than this anywhere else in the world?

- Actually, I don't mind the theatrical concept, but I find the accompanying acting to be amateurish and over-the-top. It was painful to watch. Look at this video of Lau Siu-lai's silly "Gotcha" smile.

- I don't think that the Chief Executive CY Leung minds an adjournment of the meeting. He came and went without much effort. In this way, he earns $371,000 a month. This is even better than being a Legislative Councilor. P.S. He does not get blamed for the adjournment.

- Each legislative councilor gets a couple of minutes to pose a question. Lau Siu-lai used her time to play an audio recording of CY Leung speaking about the universal pension system during his 2012 Chief Executive election campaign.

What does this prove? At this moment, the pension system is stuck in limbo because there seems to be two schools of opinion. One school thinks that the pension should be universal; for example, $3,000 per month to all those over the age of 65. There are questions over whether this is sustainable when the fiscal reserves run out. There is no clear answer because so many things could happen along the way to 50 years later. Another school thinks that the pension should be means-tested; for example, Li Ka-shing whose net worth is estimated at HK$ 230+ billion really does not need $3,000 more each month. These issues are not going to be resolved by playing a short audio recording.

- (NOW TV) The audio recording that Lau Siu-lai played had CY Leung saying in 2011 to a certain Grandma Lo that he promises to "seriously" take care of universal pension. But the full recording has CY Leung saying: "Is Grandma Lo the oldest person here? I should answer Grandma Lo's question first, okay or not? Grandma Lo, you talked about a universal pension. In your words, it is a universal retirement protection. There is no need to be grand and spectacular. It is not hard to understand. You have to be absolutely serious ..."

CY Leung was only saying that the issues around universal pension requires one to be absolutely serious ... He did not say that he is absolutely serious about implementing universal retirement protection.

This was a lousy frame-up by Lau Siu-lai. Did she think that the original statement won't be retrieved from the memory hole and presented in full?

- The Hong Kong Free Press added: In fact, in his election manifesto, Leung promised to use fiscal reserves to “to meet future expenditures arising from the ageing population such as medical and healthcare expense and pension payments.”

Well, the promise is abstract because it never got into the details such as the amount of monthly payments, age of eligibility, means-test criteria, etc.

There is no consensus among the legislative councilors or society at large about the parameter values. CY Leung cannot just draw a proposal up and ram it through the Legislative Council. If he did, he would be accused of causing social rifts again.

- (Oriental Daily) January 19, 2017. The best part is this: During the pause in the meeting, Helena Wong Pik-wan (Democratic Party) argued with pro-establishment legislative councilors. Wong said that the pro-establishment legislative councilors were "shining the shoes" with their questions and wanted to know if only "shoeshine boys" are allowed to ask questions. The pro-establishment legislative councilors called her "low intelligence woman" and even used obscene language.

https://www.facebook.com/Dr.ElizabethQuat/videos/953411974792433/
https://www.facebook.com/gigi.mak.50/videos/10212395896959163/

- (RTHK) At 0:52 of the scrimmage, Claudia Mo caused a collapse of the scrum. Under Rule 20.8(g) of the Laws of the Game of Rugby Union, the sanction is a penalty kick, with 3 points being awarded for a successful kick.

(Hong Kong Free Press) January 19, 2017.

The government has decided to bar two localist groups from selling merchandise at the city’s largest Lunar New Year fair for public safety reasons.

Youngspiration and the Hong Kong National Party received a letter from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department on Tuesday and Wednesday respectively, saying that it had terminated their license agreements for operating stalls at the fair in Victoria Park, Causeway Bay. The notices came less than a week before the fair is scheduled to begin on Sunday.

“We believe the merchandise you will be selling is related to the pro-independence messages that Youngspiration/Hong Kong National Party propagates,” the department wrote.

It said that the sale of the merchandise by the groups would “very likely endanger public order and public safety,” as the fair will be packed and there will be people supportive of, as well as opposed to, the pro-independence messages. The department said the Hong Kong government reserves all its rights on this matter.

(Hong Kong National Party Facebook)

[the original text in English]

The HKNP has heard from the FEHD that the Party has been barred from setting up stall in the 2017 Victoria Park Lunar New Year Fair, citing the reason, "The HKNP advocates for Hong Kong independence, and is a potential threat to public order." Ever since our founding in March, the Communist-Colonial government of Hong Kong has been relentless in its oppressive violations — disqualified from the LegCo election, rejected from the Companies Registry, and now barred from even the trivial matter of a market stall — truly, the Communist-Colonial government is as adept at political persecution as it is at being afraid of the least of human rights: the law-given and trivial right of setting up stall in a Lunar New Year Fair. Thus we see the disproportionate trembling of the lapdogs' boots, in this most jovial of seasons, on a matter most insignificant of political import.

Political parties are not a new sight in Hong Kong's Lunar New Year Fairs. Indeed, it has grown to be almost a tradition for parties of all persuasions to set up stall thus. And yet, the FEHD today, waving its hastily written discipline slip, handed down by a chain of bureaucrats sensing fear by the faintest smell of "independence", plunged headstrong into the sorry and sad precedence of outright cowardice, needless sensitivity, and blatant political persecution — let all potential embarrassments to the naked king be removed from all facets of public life, let alone participate in the celebration of Lunar New Year. The FEHD should, if it were a logically consistent entity, henceforth ban all Hong Kong political parties from participating in this year's Lunar New Year Fair, as all political positions would naturally have their own opposition, and with that, potential embarrassment for our government's constructed image of social harmony. That the FEHD did apply its unjustified power on the HKNP and the HKNP alone shows that this whole charade is anything but logical — it is purely political, and political puerile, too.

The HKNP hereby reserves the right to pursue the matter in court, and shall and shall discover the means by which we distribute our New Year goods in advocacy of Hong Kong Independence, unimpeded by the feeble attempts at censorship by the Communist-Colonial government of Hong Kong. Let this Lunar New Year be a celebration of political freedom, and not political cowardice.

(Hong Kong Free Press) January 19, 2017.

Youngspiration said the department told them that it was only implementing a decision made by the government and that the decision was made “based on guesswork.” The group said it was going to let local designers sell their products at the stall, and is yet to finalise the list of merchandise. It criticised the government for cracking down on political groups without evidence. It said it would continue fighting for its right to operate the stall and might find another means to distribute their products.

Here is what Youngspiration said is their planned stall:

Internet comments:

- I think you should put "safety concern" in quotation marks, since it is speculation, and possibly just a pretext to oppress freedom of speech.

- Of course there is real safety concern. Can't you imagine? Given that a group of patriotic grandpas and grandmas pulled separatist Nathan Law by the shirt in an environmentally unfriendly way at the airport recently, there could be environmental catastrophe at the Lunar New Year Fair! Save the earth!

- If you cite safety concern, they will condemn you for oppression because you have no evidence that something unsafe and dangerous will take place.

If you let them proceed and a full-scale riot by grandpas and grandmas takes place to cause a stampede with multiple casualties, they will condemn you for negligence in the face of clear and present danger.

If you let them proceed and you assign two hundred police officers to protect them and their stall, they will condemn you for misusing police force and affecting their business volume.

It does not matter what you do, they will condemn you. They are always right and you are always wrong. Why? Because FREEDOM DEMOCRACY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE PUBLIC JUSTICE RULE OF LAW UNIVERSAL VALUES. Or something.

This means that you should do whatever you believe is right and ignore what they say.

- In a court of law, FEHD will insist that it was a matter of safety concern. When asked to produce evidence, FEHD can cite two recent incidents:

(1) Chinese/Hong Kong Traitors Beaten in Taiwan Andy Chan Ho-tin and Jason Chow Ho-fai of the Hong Kong National Party went to Taipei and were assaulted in a restaurant by anti-independence demonstrators.

(2) A Tale of Two Cities When Legislative Councilor Nathan Law (Demosisto) returned from Taipei to Hong Kong, the police did a risk assessment and recommended that he use the VIP passageway to avoid the waiting demonstrators. Nathan Law said that he promised to meet the press in the arrival hall and went there against police advice. The resulting chaos meant that there was no press conference and it took Nathan Law 50 minutes to finally leave by a taxi.

There is a strong likelihood that there will be demonstrations against the Hong Kong National Party and Youngspiration stalls. The manpower required to protect them might be several hundred police officers for January 22-28, 2017 noon-midnight. There won't be enough space to station those police officers because the stalls are tightly bunched and contiguous.

- Of course, the Hong Kong National Party/Youngspiration can obtain a court injunction against demonstrations in front of their stalls. Anyone violating the court order will be guilty of contempt of court.

- Immediately the likely protest groups will apply for a judicial review because this is a violation their freedom of assembly/speech.

- (SCMP) January 19, 2017.

On Thursday, Chan said the ban violated freedom of speech as protected by the Basic Law. “It is definitely political suppression,” he said, adding it was a long-standing practice of local political parties to operate stalls at the Lunar New Year fair. Chan said their merchandise, comprising books and apparel, broke no local laws. “The terms of the contract didn’t specify that we can’t sell anything about Hong Kong independence,” the activist said, claiming they had fulfilled all the licence agreement conditions.

- This is called the misdirection play. The FEHD letter refers to 'safety concerns', not about pro-independence merchandise.

- Here are the terms of contract. (FEHD) Successful applicants will be required to enter into licence agreements with the Department (please refer to Annex X). According to Section 10 of Annex X,

The Department shall have a right to early termination of the Agreement either for the whole or part of the Fair Period. The Department can also repossess the whole or part of the License Area during the Fair Period for the use by the Department or other government departments for whatever reasons as the Department finds fit to do so.

On happening of the aforesaid event, the Licence Fee paid shall be refunded on a pro-rata basis without interest to the Licensee for the unused period of the Agreement and the Department shall not be liable for any loss on the part of the Licensee as a result of such termination. The amount to be refunded shall be equivalent to a sum being the unused license fee for the remaining Fair Period.

Save as above, the Licensee has no right to request for refund of any payment made to the department whole or partial termination of the Agreement.

- (SCMP) January 19, 2017. The party said it was also considering filing a claim against the authority to seek compensation.

- Since Jason Chow Ho-fai had to sign the license agreement, there is zero chance of getting any compensation. What is he going to say? "I didn't read the agreement carefully." Maybe, but would you have stopped your bid if you did read it?

- (SCMP) January 19, 2017.

Party member Jason Chow Ho-fai, who had previously bid and got permission for the stall, said they were considering writing an open letter to US president-elect Donald Trump to urge him to take note of Hong Kong’s current political situation.

- What? Isn't Localism about the Locals taking care of Local Affairs themselves without outside interference? When the Hong Kong Communist colonial government received orders from Beijing to carry out oppression, we the Hong Kong Localists should be rising up in Valiant Resistance. But instead, we are going to write letters. First to US president Donald Trump, and no doubt to be followed by letters to British Prime Minister David Cameron; United States senators Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz;  United Nations Secretary-general Ban Ki Moon; Japanese president Shinzo Abe; Taiwan president Tsang Ing-wen; Barcelona FC forward Lionel Messi; American actress Kim Kardashian; Japanese AV actress Yui Hatano; etc.

- (RT) January 18, 2017. A California man tried to set himself on fire outside Donald Trump’s luxury hotel in Washington, DC, without success. He later told reporters he was protesting Trump being elected president, and was taken to a hospital with minor burns.

Do you think that Donald Trump can take time out to deal with the urgent problem of Chow Ho-fai not getting a stall at the Lunar New Year Fair in Victoria Park, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong?

- According to Leung Chung-hang, the successful bids for their two stalls came in the personal names of his ex-Legco aides Mr. Lee and Mr. Chin. They planned to sell postcards with old Hong Kong maps as well as products sold by consignment from local designers. Leung said that the products contain political information, but they have not decided on the final offerings. Leung does not understand why FEHD seemed to know what they will be selling.

Mr. Lee said that he contacted a Chief Health Inspector named Kwok, and was told that the agreement was terminated due to the tie to Youngspiration. However, they denied that they screened the applicants. Kwok said that this was an executive decision. If Youngspiration asks other stalls to carry those products, the FEHD will consider shutting those stalls as well.

Leung chung-hang wrote and demanded a reasonable response by tomorrow. However, under the regulations, the FEHD can take as many as 10 days to handle an appeal, by which time the Lunar New Year Fair would be over.

- (HKG Pao) As you might expect, both Chan Ho-tin and Leung Chung-hang are saying that they intend to apply for judicial reviews. With legal aid, of course.

- Loki Tham's Facebook


So what if your Lunar New Year Fair stall license agreement was unjustly terminated? At the most, you bunch of theoreticians will just write some new garbage posts on Facebook.
Or else you can have your Epochal Revolution ...
By this time, the issue is no longer what the government has done. The important point is how you react. You could have continued with the Occupy Movement, the anti-parallel trade demonstrations or the 2016 Lunar New Year show so that you can continue to seize the initiative over your opponents.
But today everybody has seen through you -- all you ever wanted was a Legislative Council Seat! You never wanted to do anything else. So don't try to sneak through!
You are going to use the Lam Ho-ki strategy: First he will write more garbage to get other theoreticians excited; he will get dick faces like Psychologist Sam to spread rumors; then he will get the the rotten canine followers and Key Opinion Leader assholes to fan up a storm ...

- Hey, Psychologist Sam has already gotten a head start!  He is upset at what his lying eyes told him what rival localist organization Civic Passion is doing.


Sam Yiu Tong Wong's Facebook
Legal rental, legal sales, but the Hong Kong Communists oppressed them without justification
Civic Passion did their best to heap scorn and sarcasm
Does Civic Passion stand on the side of the Hong Kong Communists, or the side of the people of Hong Kong? This is very obvious.

[Psychologist Sam is assuming that you are not going to read what Civic Passion actually did, but here it is:]

Civic Passion Facebook
We condemn the Food and Environmental Health Department for shutting down Lunar New Year Fair stalls without justification.

- Demosisto Facebook

Demosisto has a stall at the Lunar New Year Fair and they intend to wear aprons with party logos. They designed the product and asked a Hong Kong company to produce on their behalf. Like just about every 'manufacturing' company in Hong Kong, the physical production is actually done in mainland China by a partner company. In this case, the mainland factory refused to do the job. So the Demosisto people have to produce their own using silk screen technology. The production total is now reduced to 30 pieces.

- This is the same old story based upon Economics 101. In Hong Kong, the market is small and therefore the demand is low. Unit prices are necessarily high due to the high overhead costs (rent, labor, etc). In turn, this drives demand even lower. Apart from manufacturing, the same is true for agriculture, fishery, films, television, sports, and everything else that you can think of.

- Of course, some politicians still have fantasies. For example, why not nationalize the Fanling Golf Course or the Sha Tin Jockey Club Race Course and turn it into farmland so that Hong Kong can grow and become self-sufficient in healthy organic food.

- (Wen Wei Po) January 23, 2017. The Hong Kong National Party claimed that the FEHD could not know what their merchandise are because they themselves have made no decision yet. For all we know, they may want to sell rubber chickens. Now the Hong Kong National Party has posted the design of their stall.

The entire stall is surrounded by "Hong Kong independence" flags!

- (HKG Pao) Although Youngspiration no longer has a stall at the Lunar New Year Fair, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching showed up at 915pm at their assigned locations, handed out leaflets and addressed the public (with a live Facebook broadcast). Yau made the point that the government is interfering with the freedom of commerce in Hong Kong and therefore the people should watch every move that the government makes. They left after one hour or so. Afterwards they said that since there was no rioting, therefore it means that the Food and Environment Hygiene Department was wrong to ban their stall on grounds of public safety.

- The reason why there was no riot was that they went there without prior announcement. Why don't they post that they will appear at the same time and place tonight, and see if there is a riot? [Reminder: You cannot flag a taxi inside the fair grounds in order to flee the scene of a riot.]

- Unlike the Chinese Communist tyranny, the British Empire staunchly defended freedom of commerce, such as the inalienable freedom/right of the East India Company to sell opium to China. Hong Kong would not even exist without this.

- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. January 26, 2017.

[summarized]

Once upon a time, the Lunar New Year Fair was a happy place to be. Every stall sells happy products. Even the politicians came to write happy banners for their supporters. Because it was the Lunar New Year, everybody put aside their political disagreements and came together to be happy.

Somewhere along the way, the Lunar New Year Fair has become a place filled with hatred. Some people sell dolls of Chief Executive and they want people to come and hit the dolls with hammers; some people sold toilet papers printed with the heads of government officials and they want people to wipe their asses with these papers; some people sell t-shirts for hundreds of dollars with printed obscenities against government officials; etc. The political parties are now peddling hatred disguised as black humor. The happy Lunar New Year Fair has now become a place of hatred.

This year, Polytechnic University tutor Cheung Chung-tai is selling a book titled <There is a type of criminal known as off-duty police officers>. It is the story of 88 police officers who broke the law. This is clearly intended to inflame hatred against the police.

There are more than 34,000 police officers in Hong Kong. Cheng used 88 individual cases to say that all off-duty police officers (and they are off-duty for the majority of their time) are criminals. There is nothing about how many off-duty officers have jumped into the harbor to rescue people, help move cars that are struck in traffic, deliver babies in the street, help old people cross the street, move heavy furniture for citizens, catch thieves/robbers, look after lost children, pull people out from car wrecks, give street directions, etc.

Every profession has its bad apples, just as every historical epoch has its share of Chinese traitors.

But just because one teacher molested a child, we are not going to suspect every teacher of being a child molester. Just because one government official took a bribe, we are not going to suspect that every public servant is a crook. Just because a few legislators assaulted people, insulted the national flag, stole properties from others and accepted secret donations, we are not going to publish a book entitled <There is a type of criminal known as Legislative Councilors>. Just because someone chased away parallel traders, bullied children and senior citizens, and called anti-Occupy parents 'pigs', we are not going to publish a book entitled <There is a type of animal called university tutors>.

Nowadays it is easy to spread hatred. You pay money to rent a stall at the Lunar New Year Fair. You can curse out whosoever your feel like. You don't need to produce any proof and you have no fear of being sued for libel. Why? Because FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF PUBLICATION, FREEDOM OF CREATIVITY, etc. In summary, FREEDOM.

I recommend that as of next year, all political parties should be banned from the Lunar New Year Fair. This is not oppression. This is doing them a favor. Anyone who deals in hatred (including both the buyers and the sellers) are going to have a rotten year as a matter of karma. It is one thing for politicians to wish so for themselves, but why make everybody else unhappy?

- (Ta Kung Pao) January 26, 2017. Yesterday our reporter went to observe the Hong Kong Workshop stall at the Tsuen Wan Lunar New Year Fair. At around noon, there were four to six young men. Compared to other stalls, they appeared to be less than enthusiastic. Most of the time, they sat around and chatted. They only moved when customers approach. During the afternoon, they only sold tea, dolls, t-shirts, poker cards and the book <Self-determination in Hong Kong>. They did not have a lot of merchandise, and the stall had lots of empty space.

In the evening, the Hong Kong Workshop showed its true colors. Now they have the Youngspiration t-shirts with slogans such as "Zero cost and lots of fun, so why not do it?" and plenty of books that promote Hong Kong independence. When a citizen commented that the t-shirts were so expensive, the salesman explained that the t-shirts were designed in Hong Kong and the proceeds will be used to pay for legal fees? What is the legal case? The salesman said that they have a legal case involving the government without further elaboration.

Meanwhile at 830pm Leung Chung-hang showed up outside their #199-200 stall location in Victoria Park. He used a megaphone to tell people how tough things have been since they were disqualified. Nobody paid him any attention. At 1030pm, Yau Wai-ching showed up at the Hong Kong Workshop stall in Tsuen Wan, drank beer and giggled.

- They can't open their stall but they still come back every night with their own megaphone and yell outside their designated space (see, for example, Yau Wai-ching and the FEHD inspectors and Hong Kong Police on January 26, 2017).

- (HKG Pao) January 27, 2017.

Hong Kong National Party convener Chan Ho-tin went down to the Lunar New Year Fair at Victoria Park and handed out banners of "Hong Kong independence." Food and Environmental Hygiene Department inspectors stopped him. A large number of Civic Passion and Proletariat Political Institute members such as Raymond Wong Yuk-man and Cheng Kam-mun surrounded the FEHD inspectors. They cursed out the FEHD inspectors and yelled: "Do you want to cause a riot?" From Chan Ho-tin's live broadcast, it can be seen that the clash caused the passage to be blocked. After about 10 minutes, the FEHD inspectors backed off and Chan Ho-tin declared victory and thanked his supporters.

- (Oriental Daily) January 28, 2017.

Yau Wai-ching's Facebook

[Happy Lunar New Year]

How are you? I am this year's lucky mascot Soy Sauce Chicken.
Do you know?
During the New Year
Only being round-shaped is lucky.

Please share.

- Soy Sauce Chicken is a lucky symbol to be consumed during festivities along with suckling pig and BBQ pork. With Yau Wai-ching's string of unmitigated disasters last year, she cannot be associated with "lucky".

- Round-shaped? At least she knows that her face and body have swollen up by one size after she was elected Legislative Councilor and cashed in almost $1 million in salary/expenses. The cause of this very noticeable weight gain is most commonly thought to be the result of either fine food/wine and/or taking birth control pills.

- Ugh! What is she wearing!? God forbid, this is a traditional Shina dress! Why is she cosplaying a Chinese woman now?

- Wait, the lying eyes of the Apple Daily reporter have declared that Yau is wearing a Japanese kimono. Please go check out Japanese Kimono versus Chinese Hanfu.

- Where did Yau Wai-ching find this Hanfu? After all, there aren't many stores in Hong Kong that sell such clothes. Yau wouldn't dare walk into a Yue Wah Emporium to look, would she? As with most things in this world, of course she went to Taobao where one seller lists it at 50 RMB.

The Taobao buyers' review includes one person who praised it for making an obese wearer look thin. That must be what Yau Wai-ching was looking for.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) April 19, 2017.

Two former aides to the Youngspiration party’s ex-lawmaker Baggio Leung Chung-hang filed a judicial review on Tuesday against the government over its decision to ban their party from selling merchandise at the Lunar New Year fair in January.

Li Tung-sing and Chin Ka-kit won a bid for two stalls at the fair in Victoria Park, but were informed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department less than two days before Lunar New Year that they were not allowed to sell merchandise at the festive market.

The department cited safety reasons at the time. It said it “believed” Youngspiration’s merchandise would bear controversial pro-independence messages, which would “very likely endanger public order and public safety.”

Youngspiration criticised the authorities at the time for basing its decision on “guesswork” without first communicating with the party. The products Youngspiration later presented bore messages critiquing social phenomena, rather than propagating a pro-independence agenda.

Li and Chin said in their judicial review application that the government’s decision was illegal. They requested that the department offer them a stall at next year’s Lunar New Year fair, or pay punitive damages.

They also alleged that the department breached a legitimate expectation on the basis that it had never banned political parties from selling merchandise at the fairs for public safety reasons, and that it also allowed political figures and senior officials to attend the fairs.

The duo said they sent a clarification letter and a list of their merchandise to the department seven days after they were notified of the ban. In the letter, they promised to adjust the list accordingly if the department still considered their merchandise to be in breach of the regulations, but the department maintained its position.

(Oriental Daily) January 17, 2017.

At around 4am this morning, a 25-year-old man named Lee was passing by the Kwun Tong Promenade when he saw a woman fell into the harbor. Lee immediately called the police. The Marine Police and the Fire Service boat arrived together and spotted the woman about 5 meters from shore. They pulled her up. She was still conscious. She was taken by boat to the Kwun Tong Public Pier and taken to the hospital by ambulance. According to the preliminary investigation by the police, the woman was suffering from emotional problems.

The woman is 28-year-old young model Yoyo Ng Shuk-yi. According to information, she was wandering around the promenade for a while. During that time, she even held a live Facebook broadcast. Her friends left commented to ask her not to "hold wrong ideas." Afterwards, a female friend of Ng took a taxi from Tai Po to visit her at the hospital. The friend said: "The Internet world is vast. There are so many people who watched and commented. But none cared enough to come out."

(Oriental Daily) January 17, 2017.

If Yoyo attempted suicide this morning, it will be her second attempt. In 2015, she was involved in a nude pics scandal and attempted to commit suicide in a high-profile manner. She posted a photo of her slit wrist on the Internet. Her family saw the photo and immediately called the police to save her in time.

(Oriental Daily) January 18, 2017.

On the live Facebook broadcast, Yoyo was emotionally unstable. She said many times that she is having a hard time. "A person who is going to commit suicide is not going to hold a live broadcast. I am talking about people who suffer from depression. I don't care what others may think. I will do whatever I want. I know that I am letting everybody down with what I am doing. I let down my younger brother and my mother. I promised my younger brother that I will never do anything to hurt myself again. But I am sorry that I cannot keep my promise." Then she spoke about a married boyfriend: "I hope that he will be happy with his own life. Peaceful and happy. I hope that his wife won't die until their bed has broken apart, and then it will be his turn."

About 25 minutes later into the live broadcast, Yoyo climbed up and stood on the railing. The camera was pointed skywards. About five minutes later, the sound of ambulance siren can be heard. 41 minutes into the live broadcast, a policeman picked up the mobile phone and told Yoyo's friends that Yoyo has been saved and that the police wanted to contact her family.

At 7am, Yoyo texted our newspaper to say that she "had the wrong ideas" and that she had been imbibing alcohol. She said that she did not remember jumping into the harbor. "I am really sorry to have caused people to worry about me. The doctor says that I have hypothermia, so my voice is very husky. I am really suffering. I don't want to talk anymore." At 915am, she posted on Facebook: "Sorry, I completely forgot what happened to me ... I really let my younger brother, my mother, my father and all those good friends who care about me down."

(Oriental Daily) January 18, 2017.

Yoyo said: "Over the past several months, I only drink water when I go to bars with friends. I have been drinking a lot less. After today, I will drink even less except out of manners. Actually, I usually jog along the Kwun Tong Promenade. I always feel that that particular section was evil. I don't know why I wanted to go over to that spot, run a live broadcast and then jump into the harbor. I don't remember anything."

Internet comments:

- The news accounts listed Yoyo Ng as a "pseudo-model 𡃁模 ."

(Wikipedia) Lang mo is a neologism derived from Cantonese slang to describe teenage models without formal training in modeling. The word lang (𡃁), written alternatively as "o靚" or "口靚", means "young" or "lacking in maturity" in Cantonese.

Well, Yoyo Ng is 28 years old. How is that "teenage"?

- At 28 years old, Yoyo Ng is still virtually unknown as singer/actress/model. No wonder she is depressed and suicidal.

- Umbrella Movement activist Yoyo Ng from the hospital bed

(YouTube) A Pretty Hong Kong Woman Curses Out Mainlanders

0:01 I really don't understand how this Hong Kong government is increasingly working towards helping these mainlanders. For example, I read on Facebook today that someone posted a photo and a link about how the MTR is working for the mainlanders. When they take the MTR, they get a special half-price discount. Why do we Hongkongers have to bear one price increase after another price increase?

0:26 Are the mainlanders masters? And we are less than ... I feel that the Hong Kong government has turned the mainlanders into their special guests in this fucking way ... sorry, I used obscene language. I feel that they have turned the mainlanders into their special guests. And we have fucking become common citizens. Sorry, I am really excited for I used obscene language again.

0:47 I want to say that if Hong Kong does not have citizens like us to do so much for the Hong Kong government. We have contributed so much. Why else would the mainlanders come to such a good environment for tourism, shopping and so on?

1:02 Let us not talk about the MTR. Yes, the Hong Kong government has done a little something for us. What is that little something? They are now banning mainland ... I don't want to say compatriots, because I have always said that I am a Hongkonger and I have never said that I am Chinese ... they banned those people from entering Hong Kong illegally in order to have babies. But when they enter Hong Kong illegally and have the babies, you still end up issuing a Hong Kong ID to them. So why don't you deprive all those babies who parents entered Hong Kong illegally of their Hong Kong ID's? That would be okay. And there wouldn't be so many people coming down here to have babies. Why can't they do something this simple?

1:47 Alright, next ... I feel that ... yes, some new immigrants really came down to reunify with their husbands, or with their friends. But why give them so many favors? We Hongkongers pay taxes, right or not? We will go along if the taxes that we Hongkongers pay go back to Hongkongers. But why help them? They don't have money, so we have to help them. But when we don't have money, we don't see the mainlanders help us. I feel that this is very unfair.

2:24 Yes, I understand that sometimes that one will not always reap a result for every effort put in. But I will feel that for whatever I contribute, I should be able to help whoever I want to help. I don't think that I want to help any mainlander.

2:45 Eh, you can say that I don't somewhat like them. But if I don't like mainlanders, then I wouldn't have so many mainland friends. But actually, maybe it is one group of persons who are ... to put it simply, not so good. But why do they want to go after our resources in Hong Kong?

3:08 Right now, resources are pretty good in mainland China. My grandfather and my grandmother ... their monthly pension payment ... similar to the fruit money in Hong Kong ... is more than that in Hong Kong. They are paid in RMB. Remember, they are paid in RMB. Each month, they get more than two thousand ... three thousand dollars. So why are they coming down to Hong Kong? In Hong Kong, the fruit money is just over one thousand dollars. In Hong Kong, it has to be shared by many people.

3:36 In mainland China, you have lots of land. I remember that I watched a television program once about how Hong Kong is a small place. Hong Kong is a small place because all of you rush down here so that we Hongkongers have no land. Where do we Hongkongers live? They live in studios. I am somewhat fortunate because I live with my boyfriend and therefore I can reside in a larger house. But ... actually I am paying very expensive rent. If you didn't all rush down here so that we have nowhere to live, why would they have to sub-divide and then sub-divide their apartments and cause the rent to get more and more expensive?

4:08 So what the fuck is the Hong Kong government doing? This demonstration ... they are students ... why hit them until they bleed in their heads? I feel that this really troubling. Actually, I just saw today that a teacher said that he wanted to see the June 4th incident recur ... he wanted to see the tanks roll over the students so that brains and blood gush out. I don't understand why these people can say such things ... actually, he is a Hongkonger too. Why did he do this? I completely don't understand. What has happened to this society?

4:53 Why is the government of Hong Kong not speaking up for the people of Hong Kong? Why are they speaking up for the mainland government? I think that this is really ... we Hongkongers must give our efforts to protect our Hong Kong.

5:07 Although I did not attend the last several demonstration marches, I see that my friends all marched. I am really worried that something could happen to my friends. [Sobs] It looks like I need to calm down. I hope that when you see this video, you will speak up for the people of Hong Kong. and do something meaningful for we the people of Hong Kong.

Internet comments:

- So here is someone who believes in whatever is posted on Facebook (because there are photos and links).

--- The MTR gives special discounts to mainlanders? (Apple Daily) September 26, 2014. According to the MTR Service Update, Shenzhen residents with individual visit permits can use a coupon to procure half-price discounts on their Octopus cards at the Lok Ma Chau Customer Service Center to be used after 830am daily between September 24, 2014 and January 26, 2015. According to the MTR, Lok Ma Chau has less traffic than Lo Wu. So this was a way for them to stimulate usage by Shenzhen residents with individual visit permits. The MTR also noted that Hong Kong passengers can get half-price fares from the customer service centres at selected stations to go to Lok Ma Chau.

- This is Economics 101. If a product is losing money, then (1) terminate it; (2) raise price to cover costs; (3) cut price to stimulate demand; (4) do nothing and lose more money. Take your pick.

--- "If I don't like mainlanders, then I wouldn't have so many mainland friends." Hahaha. This must be a parody of the Friend Argument, which is the laziest way to try to worm out of accepting the responsibility for enabling/endorsing prejudice.

--- Mainlanders cross the border illegally to deliver babies in Hong Kong and obtain HK ID's? (Community Legal Information Centre) Are all children who are born in Hong Kong automatically entitled to right of abode?

The present law is complicated. Essentially, being born in Hong Kong does not of itself confer any rights. Additional qualifications must be met and are summarized below:

  1. Persons who were born in Hong Kong who also have Chinese nationality are entitled to Hong Kong permanent resident status, regardless of where their parents are from. This was established in a landmark decision by the Court of Final Appeal in Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen.
  2. Persons who were born in Hong Kong who are not of Chinese nationality may be entitled to permanent residence if one of their parents is a permanent resident . In such cases, the entitlement to permanent residence is only valid up to the age of 21, and thereafter these persons must apply for qualification on their own (article 24(2)(5) of the Basic Law).
  3. Persons who were born in Hong Kong who are neither Chinese nationals nor have a parent who is a Hong Kong permanent resident acquire no legal rights by virtue of being born in Hong Kong. If the parents of such persons are living in Hong Kong , they must seek a dependant visa for the child.

Take a good look at the black hand behind Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen. It is not Jiang Zemin/Hu Jintao/Xi Jinping/CY Leung/Donald Tsang/Tung Chee Hwa.

--- "I have always said that I am a Hongkonger and I have never said that I am Chinese." That sounds very familiar. Oh, Joshua Wong went to Taiwan and said during a media interview: "I am a Hongkonger. I am of Chinese descent. But I am not Chinese."

Notwithstanding all that, Joshua Wong is obliged by law to carry a Hong Kong ID with the insignia containing the words "People's Republic of China Hong Kong Special Administrative Region"

--- Your grandparents get better senior citizen benefits in mainland China, so the mainland Chinese should not be rushing down to Hong Kong? Your grandparents apparently stayed behind in China, but their daughter rushed down to Hong Kong to marry a Hong Kong man and have you as their daughter. If all mainlanders are banned from coming to Hong Kong, you wouldn't have been born.

---  You could have been born in China when your father went there to fuck your mother. But because you were born and raised in China, you would not be allowed to come down to Hong Kong to live in an expensive apartment with your boyfriend.

--- Housing prices rise because mainlanders are rushing down to overwhelm tiny Hong Kong? Are you so sure? Could it be that the property hegemons collude with government officials to make sure that public housing doesn't get built? Or property hegemons collude with pseudo-environmentalists to stall residential developments?

--- Mainlanders bid up housing prices? Well, when mainlanders buy a house in Hong Kong, they pay the stamp duty. For example, if they buy a $20 million house, they pay $1,500,000 to the Hong Kong government, which spends it on you! And it is not likely that you will pay $1,500,000 in taxes over the course of the next 100 years.

--- "Although I did not attend the last several demonstration marches, I see that my friends all marched. I am really worried that something could happen to my friends. [Sobs]" Fuck you and the horse you rode in on! Your friends are being hit on the head, but you sit home, watch television and sob for them. You are just another armchair strategist/keyboard warrior!

- A number of Facebook users have identified the woman in this video as Yoyo Ng who attempted suicide again recently. It is hard to tell by the looks, given that Kong girls use so much powder make-up, false eyelashes, mascara, contact lenses and boilerplate South Korean cosmetic surgery. However, the psychological profiles match as both are psychopathological and suicidal. QED.

- It goes without say that Yoyo Ng makes money (in RMB) doing shows on mainland China even as she tells mainlanders not to come down to Hong Kong and steal our resources.

Previously, They've Got New Legal Theories.

(SCMP) January 16, 2017.

An appeal court has rejected a last-ditch bid by two Hong Kong pro-independence activists to have their Legislative Council seats reinstated after they were ousted during the oath-taking saga.

Youngspiration former lawmakers-elect Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang, who met the media before the Court of Appeal’s ruling was handed down, said on Monday that they were prepared for the outcome and might apply for permission to pursue their case at the Court of Final Appeal.

The duo are seeking to challenge previous rulings against them at the city’s top court. If an application for leave to appeal is refused by the Court of Appeal, an application may be made to the Court of Final Appeal for such permission.

The Court of Appeal also ordered Baggio Leung and Yau to pay the chief executive and the secretary for justice – the winning parties – a total of HK$335,702 in legal costs.

When reporters asked the pair outside court why they still wanted to pursue the case, Leung said: “We have new grounds.”

(Hong Kong Free Press) January 16, 2017.

The High Court has rejected the request of localist politicians Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chung-hang in their final bid to overturn the court’s decision to disqualify them from the legislature.

On Monday, the duo spoke to media outside the court to announce its decision. They said they would be appealing to the Court of Final Appeal directly. Leung said the outcome was expected. He added that they would be submitting new legal arguments to the court, though he declined to disclose them. The ousted lawmaker said they would be instructing Senior Counsel Gladys Li and a Queen’s Counsel from the UK.

The pair are seeking donations of HK$5 million from the public to fund their appeal case. On Monday, they said they have raised HK$550,000 so far. They previously said that they must secure HK$1.6 million to pay the deposit for the Court of Final Appeal, or the court would not hear the appeal. Leung did not directly respond to questions about what they would do with the amount raised if they could not meet their targets.

CACV 226.2016 The Chief Executive of the HKSAR and Another vs. Yau Wai-ching and others (2017/01/16)

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) January 15, 2017. On the evening before the Court of Appeal of the High Court announces its decision, Leung Chung-hang posted on his Facebook: "The battle will take place at the Court of Final Appeal" and "this is a battle that must be won." Does this mean that Leung/Yau and their fired legislative aides will 'occupy' the Court of Final Appeal?

- Internet funny illustration:

"The battle has started.
[Baggio Sixtus Leung Chung-hang]
Help me flag a taxi!"

- (Official Receiver's Office) FAQ about Bankruptcy

11. Q: Is a bankrupt required to pay his debts? What will happen to a bankrupt's assets and income?

A: In principle, a bankrupt's debts will be met from his/her assets and income. For this purpose, a bankrupt must hand over all his/her assets, both overseas and local, to the Trustee immediately upon the granting of the Bankruptcy Order. He/She must also inform the Trustee of his/her income. The Trustee will, after taking a view of the reasonable domestic needs of the bankrupt and his/her family, distribute the balance of his/her assets and income to his/her creditors to repay his/her debts.

12. Q: Can a bankrupt travel by taxi?

A: He/She should not unless there are reasonable grounds for doing so.

- Fleeing from the Police Special Tactical Unit is reasonable grounds (see video).

- (Oriental Daily) January 16, 2017. Leung/Yau said that they will go directly to the Court of Final Appeal and present the best legal reasons. When asked why they waited until the last step before producing their best legal arguments, Yau Wai-ching said that even if they win based upon those legal arguments in an intermediary stage, the government will appeal up to the Court of Final Appeal. Therefore they might as well as wait until the final stage. Yau Wai-ching said that one must have good techniques when fighting against the government.

- If your legal reasoning is sound, you will win all the way from the first stage to the last. You don't see the government holding back their arguments, do you? They began with arguing that Leung/Yau violated the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance as mandated by Basic Law Article 104 and that stuck all the way.

- (Oriental Daily) January 16, 2017. Leung/Yau listed a number of reasons: (1) the court should not interfere with Legislative Council matters; (2) the oath should be decided by the person who administers the oath and not by others; (3) the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance does not require a Legislative Councilor to be solemn; (4) a Legislative Councilor who neglects or refuses to take the oath should not be disqualified from the job; etc. The Court of Appeal pointed out that even if the legal issues affect the public interest, the arguments that they make have no reasonable chance to succeed.

- (Oriental Daily) January 16, 2017. Leung/Yau argued said that they have additional arguments to make to the Court of Final Appeal. The High Court responded that they should directly give those arguments to the Court of Final Appeal. According to the process, they have one more chance to apply directly to the Court of Final Appeal within 28 days.

- (Oriental Daily) January 16, 2017. Leung Chung-hang admitted that they don't know outcome of their application for legal aid and they haven't paid the deposit for the appeal. They don't even know the amount or due date for the deposit. What happens if the crowdfunding could not raise the required sum? Leung said that he hopes the deposit would be smaller. He also said that he has never heard of the High Court ever refusing to hold a hearing due to the failure to pay the deposit.

- If Leung/Yau are still legislative councilors with a monthly salary of $95,180, it may be hard for the Legal Aid Department to pick up their legal fees. But since they are jobless now, they are indigent in theory. Yau claims to be still living with her parents. However, Leung owns a flat in Southern Horizons.

- The Legal Aid Department evaluates not solely on the basis of income and assets. They also look evaluate the chance of success. So the further down the appeal road you go and you are unable to produce good legal reasons, you are less likely to receive legal aid.

- The fatal gap in the legal arguments is that there is no attempt whatsoever to justify or rationalize what Leung/Yau did during the oath ceremony. The lawyers could not mount a defense of the indefensible. They can't possibly start arguing that their oaths were solemn and sincere at the last stage, can they? If so, it will be a quick death.

- What happens with the donated money if they could not meet the targets and are therefore forced to abandon the appeal? They decline to state but I know the answer:


1982 Chateau Lafite Rothschild

Donate more money more frequently (in untraceable cash) to the Leung/Yau Defence Fund!

- (Speakout HK) January 16, 2017.

All along, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching kept saying that they have new legal viewpoints that will bring them victory. What are those viewpoints? Sorry, nobody knows. Well, if you are spending your own money to pay your lawyers, nobody cares what your viewpoints are. As long as the judges agree with you, you are done. Yet, you two blokes have no money and you want to raise money through crowdfunding. When you want us to open our wallets, shouldn't you tell us what your new legal viewpoints are? After all, we don't want to hand over their money just so you can give it to your Senior Counsels for nothing.

Throughout the crowdfunding process, Leung and Yau kept releasing 'new information.' Today, they said that they are going to hire a Queen's Counsel David Pannick plus Civic Party Senior Counsel Gladys Li. But we ask: Where is the money coming from? How can you afford to hire the two senior counsels? If you can't afford to hire them, then why are you using them as the key selling points for your crowdfunding campaign? This is a really confusing cause-and-effect story.

...

The money is in the pockets of the public at this time. I have no opinion about whether or not one should donate money to Leung/Yau. The public can decide for themselves. But if you hand the money over to them, it will go to the lawyers without getting any results; if you keep the money in your pocket, you can do a lot of more meaningful things.

- After losing in the Court of First Instance, Leung and Yau went to the High Court with 'new legal viewpoints' and they asked you the public to donate more money to support this battle that Hong Kong cannot afford to lose. But they offered only variations of the same old legal viewpoints and the High Court turned down the appeal by simply quoting the Court of First Instance -- it's been argued before and nothing has changed.

After losing in the High Court, they went to the Court of Appeal at the High Court with "new legal viewpoints" and they asked you the public to donate more money to support this battle that Hong Kong cannot afford to lose. But they offered only variations of the same old legal viewpoints. The Court of Appeal at the High Court had an easy job turning down the appeal. One of Gladys Li's point on behalf of Yau Wai-ching was dismissed with a terse "This point cannot be argued."

Now they are going to the Court of Final Appeal with "new legal viewpoints" and they are asking you the public to donate more money to support this battle that Hong Kong cannot afford to lose. What are those "new legal viewpoints" that were carefully saved for this final battle between Good and Evil? They can't tell us, because they don't want to alert the other side! You the public only have to donate more money to them, and you can trust them because they have the best legal minds with new legal viewpoints that they cannot disclose. That's all.

- The Queen's Counsel that Leung/Yau have hired is David Pannick. He charges £400,000 (=HKD 3,800,000) for two days in court.  Where do Leung/Yau get that sort of money? The CIA? MI6? Tsai Ing-wen?

- Leung/Yau said that the money to the crowdfunding campaign has stopped coming in for the last ten days. Battle fatigue for the public?

- Here is yet another explanation of their oaths of office:

Within the Localism movement, Youngspiration has been criticized for its ability as well as being opportunistic, exploitative and fuzzy. They were suspected of being "fake Hong Kong independence" because they avoid addressing the issue in public appearances. Some people even think that they are 'moles.' Meanwhile, the traditional pan-democrats and the social activists who dislike the Localists scorned the style of Youngspiration and accused them of "being valiant only in words." Even if Youngspiration candidates were elected to the Legislature, they will only follow the traditional method of resistance of the pan-democrats.

A former Youngspiration member said that the oaths of office were done to establish their credentials to all those inside and outside Localism.

- Even if this is what they had in mind, it is not a legal defense because it does not change the fact that the oaths were neither solemn nor sincere. So far, they have offered no defense because any argument so far has been insupportable.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) February 13, 2017.

The two ousted Youngspiration lawmakers have applied to the Court of Final Appeal over their disqualifications. They are hoping to hire a prominent British lawyer to represent them, alongside a local Senior Counsel.

The High Court last month rejected the request of localist politicians Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chung-hang to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, but they can apply to it directly. Monday was the deadline to do so.

They will be represented by Senior Counsel Gladys Li Chi-hei. Leung told HKFP that they were preparing documents needed to hire Queen’s Counsel David Pannick.

Pannick was most recently known for winning a case against the British government, in which the judge ruled that it must obtain parliamentary approval before Brexit negotiations can begin.

Leung said he did not know what amount the Court of Final Appeal will ask for as a deposit. The duo previously stated that they must secure HK$1.6 million to pay a deposit to the Court of Final Appeal, or it would not hear the case. As of late January, the duo’s donation page showed they had received HK$$608,965.17.

- Youngspiration Facebook February 20, 2017

Bank of China called to say that the Youngspiration's bank account has been canceled and the deposits returned. This will seriously affect the daily operations of Youngspiration and make it more difficult to raise money. At the same time, Youngspiration convener Leung Chung-hang's account at HSBC has been frozen."

Bank of China said by telephone: "We periodically re-examine our relationships with our clients. After evaluation and considering various factors, we are now informing you that our bank will no longer be able to provide service." They emphasized that the bank account has been canceled and not just frozen. When asked for the reason, they repeated the same message.

When we opened this BOC account, we contacted every bank in Hong Kong and the BOC was the only one who accept us. Reluctantly we had to open an account there.

- Well, they needed to post $1.6 million at the Court of Final Appeal as deposit and they have only $600,000 through crowdfunding. But somehow on the last day of the deadline, the money materialized magically. Of course the Bank of China must be concerned that they are facilitating money laundering and/or fraudulent fundraising.

- In Youngspiration's world, the Hong Kong Nation regards the Chee-na Nation as a hostile nation, and the Bank of China is the flagship bank of the Chee-na Nation. How could they hand over all their money to the Bank of China? How could they let the Chee-na Government know everything about their financial situation?

- They checked with every bank in Hong Kong and the Bank of China was the only who would accept them? Did they check with Citibank? It is American and therefore it must support freedom and democracy.

- No, buddy, convert everything into bitcoin. It is a parallel currency as well as an excellent failsafe investment.

- There is an alternative. You can set up an account at the Hong Kong Jockey Club. The donors can add cash into that account.

- (HKG Pao) July 14, 2017. The Legal Aid Department has turned down Leung/Yau's application for legal aid on the grounds that they have no reasonable chance of succeeding. So are you going to open your wallet and give them the $10 million or whatever it is that they need for the lawyers?

- (HKG Pao) August 24, 2017. Apple Daily asked Yau Wai-ching asked that if Leung/Yau loses their bid to be heard by the Court of Final Appeal, then how are they going to pay their $12 million legal fees plus the Legislative Council salaries? Yau said that she earns enough to make a living, although at one time she asked her family for money. As far as repaying the taxpayers' money, she said: "Even if you charge me several million dollars, it will make no difference because I can't afford to pay you? As Kwok Cheuk-kin ("King of Judicial Reviews") said, filing for bankruptcy is no big deal!"

(Wikipedia) In the first four years (2013-2016), this Hunan TV reality show came under the name <I Am A Singer>. In 2017, the new name is <Singer> with some rule changes.

December 2015, Hins Cheung became embroiled over Season 4 of the reality show <I Am A Singer>.

Anna Chan's weibo
Hins Cheung, you opposed national education, you sang Occupy Central songs and you inflamed conflicts between Hong Kong and mainland! You use the fact that you are a Guangzhou-raised singer in order to create trouble in Hong Kong. That much is undeniable! But on the TVB program <Three Entertainment Brothers>, you have the nerve to call all those who criticize you on Weibo as being hired guns who took money? By refusing to acknowledge what you did and also smearing patriots, you are truly disappointing!

(Wen Wei Po) December 15, 2015.

Anna Chan offered three pieces of evidence against Hins Cheung.

1. Hins Cheung said that Hong Kong is the last piece of clean earth for Chinese democracy. In 2012, Hins Cheung wrote on Facebook: "I grew up on the mainland. My family background is pro-establishment. But I am glad that I came to Hong Kong to work, live and settle down. It let me know the value of freedom and democracy ... Hong Kong, you are the last piece of clean earth for Chinese democracy. Please be strong, protect yourself and don't let the next generation be patriotic without understanding why. Please do not let Gloucester Road, Princess Road, Prince Edward Road become People's Road, Liberation Road, Harmony Road. Please let your freedom be forever so. Let the mainland tourists come here and learn the value of freedom. Today, the color black represents light!"

2. Last year, there was a mainland child urinating in a Hong Kong street. The poisonous media used this to fan hatred between Hong Kong and mainland. Government official Gregory So came out to ask the people of Hong Kong to be tolerant. Hins Cheung wrote on Facebook: "If I weren't a public figure, I would really like to visit your official home. But I may urinate and defecate anytime anywhere I want. You must remember to be tolerant. Thank you!"

3. On December 6, 2015, Hins Cheung was interviewed on TVB:

Q: Have you done anything on the Internet that caused a great stir, such that you won't do it again?
A: Someone distorted my comments on Hong Kong current affairs. As soon as it crosses the Lo Wu border, it becomes something different. They will say that you are supporting separatism, etc. Right now there are still people criticizing me in the mainland. I ignore them.

Q: You mean that you will say less in the future or you ignore them.
A: Because I learned afterwards that those people were paid to do so.

Q: Oh, oh, oh. Fifty-cent gang. Navy.


Anna Chan's weibo
Hunan Satellite TV's <I Am A Singer 4> has made changes to its roster of singers at the last moment. According to information, singer Hins Chueng will not participate in the program due to personal reasons.
What idol? Idols emerge because the country lets you, and the country can also take it back! Without the country, you are less than a fart!

(Hong Kong Free Press) December 17, 2015.

Hong Kong musician Hins Cheung King-hin has denied suggestions that he was barred from performing in a popular mainland singing contest following calls to boycott the artist from pro-Beijing activists.

In previous seasons, the first-episode lineup for reality TV music competition I Am a Singer has always included at least one contestant from Hong Kong. China’s state media Xinhua reported that Cheung was originally included in the lineup, but that he dropped out because of “personal reasons.”

“I am shocked [by reports that he was dropped from the programme],” Cheung said. “There are only jobs regarding my concert in Macau and award presentations on my January schedule. There are no other jobs scheduled for me, so this report is not true.”

Emperor Entertainment CEO Mani Fok told Apple Daily: “No one from the company had confirmed Hin’s participation in I Am a Singer, so there is no ‘drop-out’.”

Last Friday, Caring Hong Kong Power convener and pro-Beijing activist Chan Ching-sum called for a boycott of Cheung on Chinese social media, citing his opposition to National Education and support for the pro-democracy Occupy movement. “I cannot stop what you do, but I have the right to boycott you!” she wrote.

One netizen commented: “Support! At a show two days ago, he even said he never speaks Putonghua! [He] did not speak in Putonghua at his concert! Only speaking in Cantonese! Rubbish!” Responding to Chan’s Weibo posts, Cheung said: “Anyway, my jobs in the mainland are not affected, and [I] will continue to go back to the mainland to work.” Last year, Cheung appeared in a video alongside Anthony Wong Chau-sang and other local artists performing a pro-democracy anthem adopted from the Les Misérables song “Do You Hear the People Sing?”

This is one year later, and the Hunan Satellite TV show is now known as <Singer>. The preliminary program includes Hins Cheung in the first episode. Here is the promotional poster.

Perhaps in anticipation of trouble, Hins Cheung posted pre-emptively on his mainland Weibo:

January 9, 2017.
I was born in Guangzhou, a passionate and happy place. My wonderful hometown taught me how to love life, and accord me the pride of being Chinese. I loved music, I liked to sing. Today, I am able to stand on the stage of <Singer> mostly because my hometown gave a strength which has continued to flow in my blood. It is the blood of a Chinese person. I will never forget this no matter where I go, and it can never change. After I went to develop my career in Hong Kong, I received a lot of enthusiastic praises. But even as those fans pay attention to me, it was inevitable that I drew the rumors and  attacks of various opinions and views which misinterpret my identity and positions. In the storm of he eye, I chose silence because my voice would be swamped by the tidal waves. Some people manufactured a lot of radical views and attributed them to me as pro-Hong Kong independence. Let me re-iterate: I am Chinese, I was never for Hong Kong independence, I firmly oppose anything separatism. This is my principle.

I feel helpless against these baseless accusations. I don't know how to clarify. To whom can I explain? I am a singer, my music and behavior are monitored by the audience and fans. I accept being scrutinized. In my moment of deepest despair and loneliness, I have no choice. Since I was born for music, I will sing well for those who love and understand everything about me.

Is this going to win over Anna Chan and company?

Anna Chan's Facebook, January 11, 2017.

What Hins Cheung has done was even more deplorable than the Hong Kong independence folks! With a red-rooted family background in Guanghzou, he wanted to come here and shake the hand of Joshua Wong over National Education; he wanted to defecate/urinate all over Secretary Gregory So's home; he supported Occupy Central; he lauded the Occupy Central thugs; he supported the Sunflower Movement in Taiwan; he imitated Dr. Lo Chung-mau falling on the ground ... I remembered that even as we yelled our support of National Education at the top of our voices, Hins Cheung was saying the exact opposite! If you were such a patriot, why did you oppose National Education? Why did you want to shake Joshua Wong's hand? Will the people of Hong Kong know dignity and freedom without any National Education? By not getting National Education, Hong Kong will be the last piece of uncontaminated earth for Chinese democracy? Is something wrong inside your head, Hins Cheung? I ask you, does any country in the world not have its own national education? Today you want to earn some RMB and therefore you use Weibo to publicize your patriotism? The Central Government and the HKSAR government have both defined Occupy Central as unlawful! Since Hins Cheung now knows that he was wrong, will he lead the way and turn himself in! A brave man should admit what he did! Tell your friends that you took part in the unlawful Occupy Central, and then apologize for it. You can also use your background of a red-rooted mainland family to give full support to National Education, condemn the brick-throwing thugs, denounce the Legislative Councilors who said "Shina" ... do you dare? Also, how come you don't dare to post your weibo contents on your Facebook and Instagram as well?

Screen captures of Hins Cheung were saved previously by Anna Chan:


Hins Cheung's Facebook
Last night, after watching the news, I decided to support the friends who are on hunger strike. At the 7/11 on Lyndhurst Terrace, I purchased a carton of Pocari and a carton of Lucozade. When I got to Government Headquarters, I saw that some of them were not sleeping yet. I wanted to go over and shake the hand of Joshua. But they seem to be holding a meeting, so I did not disturb them. I grew up in mainland China, and my family background is very red-rooted. But I am glad that I can come to live and work in Hong Kong, and then stay. I got to know the value of democracy and freedom. I keep thinking that the founding fathers of the wars years of China also rose up to fight for democracy. Our primary school history text books said that the First Emperor of Qin was a dictator who burned the books and massacred the scholars. How is that different from the policy of harmony today? The people have never wanted to kill anyone. They only want to preserve their dignity and freedom. Hong Kong, you are the last piece of pure earth for Chinese democracy. Please be strong, protect yourself and not let the next generation become patriotic without good reasons. Do not let Gloucester Road, Princess Margaret Road and Prince Edward Road become People's Road, Liberation Road and Harmony Road. Please keep your freedom so that mainland travelers can come here and see how great freedom can be.


Ming Pao:
Hins Cheung grabs his knee on his sofa, in imitation of Hong Kong University Council members Dr. Lo Chung-mau who fell down to the ground.


Hing Cheung: Mister So, why don't I refer you to a psychiatrist? I don't understand why as a government official who stays in an air-conditioned room while collecting a hefty salary wants to say such shameless irresponsible things? If I were shameless and if I were not a public figure, I really want to visit your official home. But I may be defecating and urinating everywhere. Please don't forget to be tolerant. Thanks!


Silent Majority for Hong Kong: He wore blood-red make-up on stage in praise of the fully- rioters who are challenging Hong Kong law and charging at the police. He told us that he will continue to wear make-up to criticize the Hong Kong Police.
Ming Pao: Entertainer Hins Cheung attended the Metro Radio Awards Show wearing blood-red make-up. He affixed a number of bright red "veins" to criticize the police for using batons to disperse the demonstrators.

(Mango TV Woman's Weibo)

Taping of episode 1 of <Singer> is complete.
The end result was that Hins Cheung is out of <Singer>
All previous contents about Hins Cheung on the official program weibo have been purged
All his recorded performances have been purged
All his interactions with other guests have been purged
If there were scenes that could not be purged, then his head was covered with a mosaic
All other singers shall act as if nothing has happened
Basically it is as if this person had never been invited
The competition rules may have to be changed or perhaps a replacement must be found
So every singer has to be responsible for his own words and deeds
In the entertainment world
The audience is never looking at the basic problem itself
If you are not politically astute, you may be silly enough to think that this is an expression of true feelings
In order to get on the program, you insist that you never said it before
The spectators like to enjoy themselves, but they are neither blind nor deaf
So it is time for goodbye.

(Oriental Daily) January 14, 2017.

According to information, episode 1 of <Singer> was taped on January 10, 2017. Hins Cheung chose the song <Too Realistic A Kiss>, wounded up finishing second to last and just made it through to the next round. However, the news is that his part in the program will be excised completely when aired.

Emperor Entertainment Group's Guangzhou office General Manager Zhou Feng posted on his own weibo: "No sadness, just anger." On his photo he uploaded the caption: "Remember, the world is inconstant: don't be too nice."

(Weixin.qq.com) The complete catalog of incidents.

September 2012: ATV's program about National Education was accused of being biased. Entertainment Chapman To said that he was ashamed to have started his career at ATV. Hins Cheung announced that he will no longer work with ATV and he will formally join in the campaign to stop National Education.

March 2014: Hins Cheung and a number of theatrical actors/actresses sang the Occupy Central song “Do You Hear the People Sing?” and uploaded the number onto social media. Hins Cheung wrote on Instagram that they posted the lyrics on the backstage.

March 2014: Hins Cheung wrote to the Sunflower Movement in Taiwan: "To the fellow students against the Taiwan Straits, add oil!" He openly supported the Sunflower Movement to stop the Service Trade Agreement.

April 2014: A mainland child urinated in public in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Secretary of Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So asked citizens to be tolerant for the sake of peace and harmony. Hins Cheung wrote on Instagram: "I really want to visit your home, but I may be urinating and defecating everywhere. Please remember to be tolerant."

October 2014: The police released pepper spray and tear gas to disperse the demonstrators. Hins Cheung commented on the relevant news photos: "The people are innocent! Firmly oppose violent suppression of the masses!"

December 2014: Joshua Wong started a hunger strike in order to force the HKSAR government to reject the constitutional reform proposal from the Central Government. Hins Cheung wrote on Instagram: "I bought a box of Pocari and a Box of Lucozade. I got down to Government Headquarters. I saw that some of the friends were not asleep yet. I really wanted to go over and shake Joshua Wong's hand ..."

December 2014: Hins Cheung wrote on Instagram: "Hong Kong, you are the last piece of pure earth of Chinese democrdacy."

December 27, 2014: Hins Cheung went to an awards presentation show wearing bloody makeup in order to express a "message" about how the police dispersed demonstrators during Occupy Central.

After being criticized by mainland Internet users, Hins Cheung replied on Instagram: "They used various information channels to accuse me of treason." But since he loves his family, he compromised. But Hins Cheung emphasized that he is standing by the Occupy Central people and he will support them in his heart. "I will use my songs to support them in my own way! I have no regrets ..."

January 1, 2015: Hins Cheung attended the Commercial Radio Ultimate Song Charts Awards Show and paid keen attention to the singers who sang the Occupy Central song <Raise the Yellow Umbrella>.

January 9, 2017: Hins Cheung issued a declaration of patriotism on Weibo. He emphasized that he is Chinese and Chinese blood flows in his body. For the Hong Kong media, this sudden flip-flop raised "goose pimples."

(Sing Tao) January 17, 2017.

Today EEG finally responded: "We have been following up with the television station about the reports of Hins Cheung at the Hunan Satellite TV program <Singer>. From the day when the program was recorded to now, there have been various kinds of voices whether accurate or inaccurate, fair or unfair. This has created huge pressures on the singer and the television station. This morning, we discussed for the last time with the television station. Both sides have jointly decided to terminate this cooperation. In the future, Hins Cheung will concentrate on his music and train his body to deal with the busy work and concerts in order to repay his music fans. Finally, we thank Hunan Satellite TV for their earnest invitation this time, and to thank all the fans of Hins Cheung for devoutly supporting him. Hins also hope that the music fans can support and appreciate his decision.

Internet comments:

- What happens to someone who stands on the wall without choosing either side? He gets shot at from both sides. Here is a Hong Kong localist cartoon of his <Singer> poster. The words have been changed to "The bones inside Shina people will always be Shina. Go back to your Shina nation! Hins Cheung got down on his knees for the sake of RMB!"

- (Apple Daily) January 10, 2017. Internet comments:

Hong Kong

- I'm very disappointed in you. Even today you still want to appear on this shit program to prove what? Do you remember what you said before? Today's me has overthrown yesterday's me!

- Somewhat disappointed. You have great ideals, but you chose the wrong platform. I still like your singing, but I am sorry that I won't watch this garbage program.

- I am disappointed not because you are kneeling down for RMB, but because you were born in mainland China. What you wrote on weibo made it loud and clear that you oppose separatism. Before you became popular, you chose to become a Hongkonger. After your career took off, you chose to become Chinese again. Right? You chose to submit yourself to those who are bullying you. Your aura has fallen off. I want to remember the you who was once a Hongkonger. I wish you the best of luck going back to the Motherland, but I will not be cheering you on.

Mainland China

- Esteemed Mr. Zhang Jing-xian. Can you please put your weibo essay on your Facebook as well in order to demonstrate your sincerity? It is a fact that you supported Occupy Central. Did you know that someone on mainland China was sentenced to jail for supporting Occupy Central? A genuine Chinese person must accept his responsibilities. When you make a mistake, you rectify it. We can forgive you, but you shouldn't treat us as fools.

- You say one thing on Weibo, and something else on Facebook/Instagram. You were so active in the early stages of Occupy Central. As a public figure, if you pick sides and show us a bad example, you should be held responsible for such actions. You deserve the boycott by the Internet users. We have seen enough of you double-faced entertainers.

- You spared no effort to attack the Hong Kong and mainland governments during Occupy Central. But now you refuse to admit it. When you realized that there is money to make here, you show up with a thick skin. Coward!

- (Apple Daily) January 14, 2017. Internet comments.

Mainland China

- Separatism will end badly. Do not forget that the audience does not suffer from amnesia. As a public figure, you should have decided on your role. On one hand, you support Hong Kong independence. On the other hand,  you say that you are Chinese. Do you really think that we are blind? That we can't access Facebook? When you want to make money, you remember that you are Chinese? Sorry, you cannot just hug the Motherland's thigh whenever your feel like.

- If you want to make money in mainland China, we won't demand that you grovel about your being Chinese. But it is pretty disgusting to say one thing and do something else behind the back.

- Hins Cheung was always cannon fodder for Hunan Satellite TV to generate public interest. His expulsion was anticipated.

- One thing on Facebook, and the opposite on Weibo. Shouldn't such a separatist be expelled? Some people say that we are still living in the midst of the Cultural Revolution. I say that your brain is a good thing and I hope that we all have one. Freedom of speech is okay, but separatism is not okay. You cannot advocate separatism.

Sometimes, I feel a profound helplessness. I am sick and tired of repeating to people that Hins Cheung is not pro-Hong Kong independence. I find that the banality of the Chinese people is deeply planted into the hearts and souls. There is no way to eradicate it. Once someone pours dirty water onto an innocent person, the rest of the people will spit at him as well. It is sad that Hins Cheung has become the sacrifice of the Mango TV hype.

Hong Kong

- Those 1,000 words to declare your patriotism led to the same outcome. This shows that if you have the ability, you will always have a market. You should never have tossed your dignity into the trash bin in order to get close to China.

- You really screwed up this time. The mainland Chinese ban has begun. You are the grass on the wall leaning in the direction of the wind. You should have copied the righteous example of Chapman To.

- I am going to be watching Hins Cheung in mosaic on <Singer>. There was no reason to re-tape the show. If China ousted Hins Cheung, then the problem is with China. If Hins Cheung withdrew on his own, then there is no problem. So what did Hins Cheung withdraw, or was he withdrawn?

- Is it wrong to boycott an entertainer because you dislike his political beliefs? If you think that it is wrong, where were you when the Hong Kong localists organized the boycott of the movie From Vegas to Macau III?

- We were born in a time of chaos (生於亂世) where the people cannot make a living (民不聊生). So only leftist retards (左膠) still want to talk about principles. This is just so passé already! Today we are fighting for our survival. We have one and only principle: Everything that we do is morally right, and everything that our enemies do is morally wrong. That's all you have to remember. Go home now and wait for the next call to action. In the meantime, keep donating more money more frequently to the Cause.

- It wasn't as if the Ministry of Culture issued a direct order to Hunan Satellite TV to fire Hins Cheung. Instead, it was a slow unraveling. It began with Hunan Satellite TV announcing its <Singer> roster, which included Hins Cheung. Because of the rumors swirling around the non-appearance of Hins Cheung last year, this drew extra attention. Internet users such as Anna Chan brought back the catalog of Hins Cheung's sayings and actions. Hins Cheung decided to issue his own declaration of patriotism which was rejected by Internet users because he completely failed to acknowledge and apologize for his past deeds. Things got to a point where <Singer> will certainly not go ahead as a reality show, because Hins Cheung will continue to become the talk of the town with a consumer boycott campaign against Hunan Satellite TV and its advertisers. So they cut Hins Cheung off.

- Who is Anna Chan? Why does she wield so much power? As Anthony Wong once pointed out, Anna Chan is a nobody -- she has no official power whatsoever. Even Anna Chan says so, but she also says: “I cannot stop what you do, but I have the right to boycott you!” And the Internet allows her to tell everybody else about her reasons and ask them to join her in the boycott.

- Anna Chan's technique is very simple. She visits the personal blog, Facebook, Instagram, weibo and weixin of the celebrities and takes screen captures of what she regarded as unpatriotic, immoral, etc. Then she presents it on her own social media pages. The rest is up to the people. She has never been caught with fabricating information in order to make up a case against a targeted individual. (Link)

- Anna Chan has only about 120,000+ weibo followers and 6,000+ Facebook followers. Hins Cheung has millions of fans on Weibo and Facebook. So if Anna Chan wins, it is a case of People Power. She collated the facts and let the people decide for themselves. They did it for themselves and not for Anna Chan.

- Emperor Entertainment Group has a large stable of entertainers: Nicholas Tse, Joey Yung, Twins, Raymond Lam, Leo Ku, etc. With their extensive experience, how did they wind up in this situation? Why was Hins Cheung allowed to enter <Singer> given what Anna Chan had already uncovered last year? Who reviewed the so-called Declaration of Patriotism, which was clearly insufficient? And how come EEG is missing in action now?

- If EEG defends Hins Cheung aggressively, the mainland Chinese consumer boycott may spread to its other stars. So EEG won't even offer a passive defense.

- Here is some terminology used in Hong Kong public relations.

[露底] "Unintentionally revealed your bottom card" -- Through his past actions, Hins Cheung is perceived to have revealed his true nature.

[補鑊] "Mend the broken wok" -- Hins Cheung needs to heal his perceived problems.

[洗底] "Complete makeover, such as an open declaration to quit triad society" -- Hins Cheung has the option of making a clean breast of all his past mistakes and re-boot his life as a reformed new human being.

[淆底] "Did something wrong, chickened out and then tried to confuse things in order to avoid responsibility" -- Hins Cheung also has the option of confusing the issue and hope to muddle his way out of his perceived problems.

[大鑊] "Big wok" -- Oh boy, I think that we have a serious problem here!

[金翅仆街鳥] "The golden-winged pok gai Bird" -- This time you've really screwed up!

- (Oriental Daily) January 16, 2017.

So far Hins Cheung has not commented on what happened. Over the years, it has been rumored that Hins Cheung is blacklisted on mainland China. Recently a group of EEG singers including Nicholas Tse, Joey Yung, Leo Ku, Hacken Lee, Raymond Lam, William Chan and Twins sang the theme song for the new movie <Cook Up A Storm>. Hins Cheung was notably absent. More recently, the <Cook Up A Storm Music Tasting of EEG Superstars Concert> was held in Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou again without Hins Cheung.

According to information, EEG has been trying to plead the case of Hins Cheung with various authorities over the years. This year they finally got Hins Cheung into <Singer> in a low-profiled manner. Unfortunately, Hins Cheung's recent post was too sensitive and touched the nerves of mainland Internet users again. This placed Hunan Satellite TV in a no-win situation. Eventually they decided to cut Hins Cheung loose.

- (HK01) January 22, 2017.

The first episode of <Singer> has been aired. Hins Cheung was not listed on the program. However, sharp-eyed Internet users detected his presence in a number of scenes, such as the top of his red-dyed hair, or the arm of his red suit as he sat next to female singer Teresa Carpio. There is even one scene in which the top half of his body can be seen while the other singers embraced!

- (HKG Pao) February 7, 2017.

At a public appearance yesterday, Hins Cheung was obviously asked about <Singer>. With respect to the patriotic essay, he said: "Actually that essay was a re-statement of my identity as a Chinese ... Hong Kong is a part of China. I said so after I did the concerts in 2014. This time, the <Singer> program people said that people are forgetful and they wanted me to re-state this." Although he quickly added that the essay was not written at the behest of the program people, he said "there was a lot of noise" at the time. What is the difference between writing something at the request of the program people and writing something in response to some "noise"? Both did not come from his heart.

Was the essay in fact written by the program people? Hins Cheung did not deny it. He said: "The past is gone. I have forgotten many details. I don't take this incident too seriously."

(SCMP) December 1, 2016.

What is perhaps most intriguing is a local delegation to Beijing led by former journalist and radio host Robert Chow Yung. Chow founded Silent Majority for Hong Kong two years ago to fight Occupy Central. As its leader, he managed yesterday to meet the who’s who in Beijing in charge of Hong Kong affairs. These included National People’s Congress chairman Zhang Dejiang (張德江), Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming (張曉明), Wang Guangya (王光亞) of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and Chen Zuoer (陳佐洱), chairman of the semi-official Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies.

One meeting reportedly lasted two hours. And the encounters were no mere chit-chats. Zhang used the occasion to warn that advocating independence for Hong Kong would “bring calamity to the country and the people”, and Hongkongers must “struggle” against it. Chen said there must be no mercy in dealing with secessionists, who must be ruthlessly pursued and rooted out.

Even for a top Hong Kong official such as the chief executive, such meetings would have been unusually high profile; for a local civic group, it’s practically unheard of.

So what is the deal with Silent Majority for Hong Kong and other pro-establishment Internet media outlets? What is their standing in the media ecology of Hong Kong?

(Silent Majority for Hong Kong) January 11, 2017.

The following is a table of statistics for the major Hong Kong politics Facebook sites for one week in November 2016. The four columns of numbers are (1) cumulative number of LIKE's; (2) change from last week; (3) number of posts this week; (4) weekly engagement. The numbers came directly from Facebook, so that there is no room for manipulation.

The 21 Hong Kong political Facebook pages are (1) Apple Daily; (2) 100 Most; (3) Bastille Post; (4) D100+; (5) InMediaHK; (6) Passion Times; (7) Speak Out HK; (8) Ming Pao Instant News; (9) Good News Hong Kong; (10) On.cc; (11) Orange News; (12) HK01; (13) Stand News; (14) Initium Media; (15) Silent Majority for Hong Kong; (16) memehk.com; (17) am730; (18) Pan Siu To; (19) NOW News; (20) HKG Pao; (21) Post852. They have been ranked by the accumulated number of Facebook users who have given LIKE's. The pro-establishment ones are in red.

According to Fanpage Karma,

The number of fans is the most well known of all the figures and it’s publicly available for each fan page. However, the significance of this KPI (Key Performance Indicator) is limited. The number of “inactive fans”, who were attracted by competitions but are not interested in the content of the page or simply purchased fans reduce the meaningfulness.

A better KPI is Weekly Engagement, which is the number of people who Liked, Commented, Shared or Clicked on your post. In the above table, the top six in Weekly Engagement have been framed inside BOLD RED rectangles: (1) Apple Daily; (2) Silent Majority for HK; (3) 100 Most; (4) HKG Pao; (5) Speak Out HK; (6) Good News Hong Kong. (2), (4), (5) and (6) are politically pro-establishment.

While Passion Times has a total number of 416,700 Page Likes, its weekly engagement is only 45,000. This means that the number of readers is declining and/or it is unable to engage its readers anymore.

While Apple Daily has a total number of 2 million Page Likes, it weekly engagement is 962,100. Of these, an unknown number is going to its non-political content (such as entertainment, finance, soccer, horse racing, etc). The breakdown can only come from Apple Daily's internal data.

While Silent Majority for Hong Kong only has a total of 147,000 Page Likes, its weekly engagement is 483,000! So it is clear that Silent Majority for Hong Kong draws a lot of non-fan readers who engage with its contents.

(HK01) Meanwhile, former Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union president Tommy Cheung Sau-yin had a different analysis. His Key Performance Indicator is the Engagement Score, defined to be (0.1 x Number of Comments) + (0.1 x Number of Likes/Reactions) + (Number of Shares).

For the period July 2, 2014 to December 15, 2014, a search was run the keywords: 'Occupy Central' OR ' Umbrella Movement' OR 'Umbrella Revolution' OR 'Occupy.'


The pages that are ranked here are: (1) Apple Daily; (2) Passion Times; (3) D100+; (4) InMediaHK; (5) Speak Out HK; (6) Ming Pao Instant News; (7) Salute to Hong Kong Police; (8) Silent Majority for HK; (9) SocREC; (10) Good News Hong Kong. The non-establishment Facebook pages are far superior to the pro-establishment pages. Apple Daily by itself is more influential than the combination of Speak Out HK, Salute to Hong Kong Police, Silent Majority for Hong Kong and Good News Hong Kong together.

Next, for the period of October 12, 2016 to November 16, 2016, a search was run on the keywords: 'Youngspiration' OR 'YoungPolitics' OR 'Leung/Yau' OR 'Leung Chung-hang' OR 'Yau Wai-ching.'

The top ten pages are: (1) Speak Out for HK; (2) HKG Pao; (3) Silent Majority for HK; (4) Apple Daily; (5) Good News Hong Kong; (6) Stand News; (7) Salute to Hong Kong Police; (8) Show Support to Preserve Universal Suffrage, Oppose Occupy Central; (9) Ming Pao Instant News; (10) On.cc. The pro-establishment camp now have six out of the top 10.

Next, for the period of October 12, 2016 to November 16, 2016, a search was run on the keywords: 'Localist' OR 'Self-determination' OR 'Hong Kong independence':

The top 10 pages are: Silent Majority for HK; (2) HK01; (3) Speak Out HK; (4) HKG Pao; (5) Apple Daily); (6) HK01 News; (7) Good News Hong Kong; (8) Salute to Hong Kong Police; (9) D100+; (10) Show Support to Preserve Universal Suffrage, Oppose Occupy Central. The pro-establishment camp has six out of the top ten.

- There are at least two different explanations about the difference between 2014 and 2016.

Explanation #1: The Chinese Communists have injected a ton of money to build up the pro-establishment presence on social media. But that can't be the only full story because the Chinese Communists could not build up the newspapers Wen Wei Po/Ta Kung Pao even with practically unlimited resources. The pro-establishment social media are doing something right now.

Explanation #2: What Yau/Leung did was indefensible, and so is Localism/Self-determination/Independence. How many more times can you insist that saying "People's Re-fucking of Shina" is guaranteed/protected under freedom of speech and separation of powers? How do you keep a straight face without being embarrassed? What it means is that the grand narrative is swinging in favor of the pro-establishment positions.

- How can Silent Majority for Hong Kong only have a total of 147,000 fans, but there is a weekly engagement of 483,000? This can be as simple as running an online poll on a subject such as: "Do you think that there should be a Hong Kong Palace Museum or not?" When you go to that page to vote, you are counted in the Weekly Engagement even though you have not become a 'friend'.

Can Apple Daily run a similar poll? Yes, but they can't run this poll because they know the answer already and they cannot accept it. The non-establishment side is suffering from a dearth of supporting issues.

- And then the non-establishment websites are being flanked on the other side. (Wen Wei Po) January 12, 2017.

There is a Hongkonger named Alfred Chow. He runs an eyeglass store in a certain Tsuen Wan shopping mall. He has started a Hong Kong Scorched Earth Power Facebook page. His Facebook friends include Yau Wai-ching, Ray Wong and other pro-independence celebrities. These people give LIKE to his posts.

Just before the National People's Congress Standing Committee issued the Interpretation of Basic Law Article 104, Alfred Chow posted: "After the Interpretation, the people of the Hong Kong Nation have only the path of revolution left ... The Epochal revolution will take the path of an armed revolution."

After Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching got disqualified, Chow wrote on his personal Facebook: "Let us turn the Paradise that used to belong to us into scorched earth." "The people of Hong Kong have not opened their eyes intelligently. We have given up all hope for this place. We have given up all hope for these people. So let us burn everything down to the ground."

A friend Wing Tang wrote: "Scorched earth means the separation of powers should be completely destroyed. No foreign capital will invest in Hong Kong. Governance will be in trouble." Another friend KL Tam wrote: "Let Hong Kong return to being a small fishing village, as opposed to an international financial center. Stocks and housing prices will tumble ..." Another friend On Kangus wrote: "I genuinely think that the only way to obtain the bargaining chips is to go scorched earth, destroy everybody and everything such that even the Hong Kong pigs will riot! We can even all join the Hong Kong Police or become government public service workers. Let's make it big!"

Afterwards, Alfred Chow established the so-called Hong Kong Scorched Earth Power Facebook. He used the descriptor "Religious organization." He said that the organization wants to enter politics with the platform: "One Country One System for Hong Kong! Only poisoned vegetables and meats of China are allowed to enter! Cantonese will be banned by law! Restore the monarchy system! Eliminate independence of the judiciary! Enact laws to restrict freedoms of speech and thought!"

Alfred Chow also spread hatred with venom: "Cheena dogs are animals that are even baser than pigs!" "All Hongkongers are dogs!" "If the Republic of China successfully takes Beijing and massacre everyone, I will consider becoming a citizen of the Republic of China." Commentator Chan Shui-wing agreed: "The people of the People's Republic of Cheena are vile animals. They are a base race. Leung Chung-hang was merely telling the truth."

So who needs Apple Daily when you have the Hong Kong Scorched Earth Power?


JR Ewing (Dallas), a covetous, egocentric, manipulative and amoral man with psychopathic tendencies.

(SCMP) Activist to continue with judicial review over Palace Museum plan in Hong Kong despite consultation vow. January 5, 2017.

A postgraduate law student who filed a judicial review application on Thursday afternoon over the government’s decision to build a local version of Beijing’s Palace Museum in the West Kowloon Cultural District said he would proceed with the case despite the administration’s latest decision to seek public views on the plan.

JR Group co-convenor Cary Lo Chun-yu said he still found the government’s decision to build a 10,000 sq m venue for relics from the Beijing museum to be questionable, even though the authority had promised a consultation on the design and exhibition and educational programmes.

In a claim filed with the High Court, the University of Hong Kong student questioned the administration’s failure to hold a public tender before hiring Rocco Yim Sen-kee to be the lead architect. It was in breach of the general procedures for implementing government projects, he claimed, adding that the irregularity could have led to suspicion of cronyism.

Lo asked the court to order that the authority hold a formal public consultation on the entire project in accordance with the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance.

The activist earlier said the JR Group had obtained signatures from 3,560 individuals and 14 civic bodies, including some localist groups, in support of their petition against the project. He denied the JR Group – formed by a number of students and other individuals –was linked to any political groups in the city. “We hope to safeguard procedural justice in Hong Kong,” Lo told the media outside the court. Neither the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority nor Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor had addressed their concerns, he said.

In reply to a Post inquiry, the authority said it had taken note of the possible lawsuit.

(SCMP) Courts must crack down on abuse of judicial reviews. By Alex Lo. January 10, 2017.

More than a year after retired Court of Final Appeal judge Henry Litton warned against the widespread abuse of judicial reviews for political purposes, the trend has continued unabated.

Until recently, it was the political weapon of choice for many pan-democratic and anti-government groups. Now, some pro-Beijing activists have followed suit. There have been at least three applications for judicial reviews since October on the subject of localist lawmakers who failed to take their oaths of office properly. This was despite legal cases already launched at the time by the government against those legislators.

Now, the latest is an application by Cary Lo Chun-yu, a law student, seeking a judicial review of the government’s planned Hong Kong Palace Museum at the arts hub in West Kowloon. He claims there should have been a public consultation and a tendering process for the project’s chief architect. This is despite the fact that a public consultation has now been launched.

Which serves the public interest more – Lo’s judicial review or a museum to showcase the nation’s treasure at no significant cost to the public? After all, the Jockey Club has agreed to foot the HK$3.5 billion bill. Lo says he has no political ties. But he is part of the new activist JR group, which aims to provide free service, information and advice for people to launch judicial reviews.

Litton has warned that the abuse of judicial reviews has not only brought harm to the entire community and undermined the rule of law, it has also been “facilitated” by the courts because of the ease with which a case is accepted. But even the retired judge could not have foreseen we would have a group that actually runs on launching judicial reviews as a political platform.

(Hong Kong Free Press) July 31, 2017.

After reading certain recent press articles, one would be forgiven for wondering if one had schizophrenia.

In a recent article, conservative columnist Christine Wat Wing-yin (屈穎妍) accused the legal aid system of working to enrich senior counsel Philip Dykes and other barristers. Around the same time, another article referred to the dramatic decline in income of foreign counsel after the handover – with one of the interviewees being Dykes. So which is it: has Dykes been fattened up or has he had to tighten his belt?

Wat’s article contains numerous errors of fact, which lead to misleading and ungrounded conclusions.

First, relatively few barristers and solicitors specialise in judicial review. Wat questioned how grassroots applicants of limited education (such as elderly Lo Siu-lan, who challenged the Link REIT, and public estate resident Chu Yee-wah, who brought legal action against the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge) could seek out Dykes to represent them.

However, media reports of important cases now frequently refer to the legal representatives of both sides; further information about them is only a few mouse clicks away. Thus, for instance, would it be surprising if Kwok Cheuk-kin (a pensioner who is nicknamed the “king of judicial review”) was acquainted with the lawyers referred to by Ms Wat?

Second, under Hong Kong’s legal system, a citizen who wishes to litigate would usually engage a solicitor, who will then engage a barrister to appear in court. The solicitors representing Lo Siu-lan and Chu Yee-wah were highly experienced; would it be difficult for them to know which barristers are experts in human rights or judicial review?

Third, judicial review cases often involve policies with society-wide impact, such as whether prisoners have the right to vote, or whether secondary school places should be assigned by sex. Both applicant and the government alike often need to retain specialists to consider the constitutionality of the laws and policies at issue. As a result, the government itself also frequently turns to the same handful of barristers for judicial review cases.

Fourth, legal aid cases are not profitable for lawyers. Legal aid is paid for using public funds. It is widely known within the legal profession that both barristers and solicitors typically receive 30-40 per cent less on legal aid cases than they do on other cases. The amount that solicitors can earn on legal aid cases is trivial compared to what they could earn on an IPO.

In addition, the small number of judicial review cases (particularly compared to criminal cases) would not be enough to sustain – let alone “enrich” – barristers and solicitors who specialise in judicial review.

Fifth, the Director of Legal Aid is empowered under the Legal Aid Ordinance to appoint independent counsel to determine if a legal aid application involving judicial review has a reasonable prospect of success. In May 2017, Under-Secretary for Home Affairs Florence Hui Hiu-fai cited the following statistics in the Legislative Council:

Thus, over the past five years, only a fifth of applications for legal aid in judicial review proceedings have been approved. Those approved applications are considered by the Director of Legal Aid to have a reasonable chance of success. If there are just and reasonable grounds for a judicial review, why not let it proceed?

As Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma declared at the ceremonial opening of the 2016 legal year: “In the important area of public law, legal aid has played its part in ensuring that Hong Kong’s public law and constitutional law have properly developed, thus helping us to reach a greater understanding of our system of law.” At this year’s ceremonial opening, Chief Justice Ma added that judicial review cases “enable the community to see the rule of law at work and to test the confidence which the public will have in the rule of law.”

From Wat’s article, it is apparent that a trend, or perhaps an undercurrent, has emerged in Hong Kong – of commentators whose relentless attacks on the legal aid system display breathtaking creativity and imagination. They have now moved from attacking applicants for “abuse” to direct attacks on the legal professionals representing them.

Hong Kong people who continue to trust and defend Hong Kong’s judicial system should remain vigilant in the face of these developments.

(Hong Kong Free Press) July 30, 2017.

Hong Kong’s legal profession has voiced concerns about the rise of public sentiments against the judicial review system, which has become a target in the city’s increasingly polarised political climate.

Senior Counsel Philip Dykes, one of the city’s top public law lawyers, warns that the trend will have a negative impact on Hong Kong’s rule of law in the long run.

“There have always been people grumpy over judicial review in particular cases, but [they are] not as persistent as in the past two to three years, not as seemingly and deliberately misinforming themselves,” he told HKFP.

Dykes has witnessed the city’s changes over the past two decades. He came to Hong Kong from England in 1984 to work for the Department of Justice. After overseeing the drafting of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, Dykes left the government in 1991 to enter private practice.

Since then, he has been involved in many landmark judicial review cases, such as the 1999 Ng Ka Ling case on the right of abode of Chinese citizens with Hong Kong parents.

He also recently represented ousted lawmakers Yau Wai-ching and Nathan Law in the government’s controversial legal challenges to unseat them.

The low-profile lawyer seldom speaks to the press despite being an authoritative voice in public law. But last month, Dykes was attacked by outspoken pro-Beijing columnist Chris Wat in an oped criticising his past involvement in judicial review cases against the government.

Wat described Dykes as a “foreign” lawyer who is “active in political cases.” She also highlighted Dykes’ previous representation of elderly judicial activist Kwok Cheuk-kin. Kwok himself is frequently targeted by pro-Beijing newspapers.

The columnist echoed Beijing mouthpiece Wen Wei Po in accusing pro-democracy lawyers such as Martin Lee and Audrey Eu of using judicial reviews to fund their political activities. “How much taxpayers’ money has been spent on feeding these lawyers through political litigation?” she wrote.

Dykes worried that Wat’s rhetoric could have a corrosive effect on the city’s rule of law in the long run.

His colleague, barrister Stephanie Lam, also expressed concern: “People seem to mix the role of law and what lawyers do with politics, and I think that is exactly what has been driving all the misconceptions – or people that are speaking out against something as fundamental as legal aid.”

To begin with, Dykes said, barristers cannot turn down clients owing to the profession’s cab-rank rule. He said he was asked to represent the applicants because of his expertise, and “any lawyer that turns it down is not a good lawyer.”

But more importantly, judicial review plays a vital role in enabling the public to monitor the work of the government, Dykes said.

“The rule of law is the principle at which courts can declare acts of the executive or the legislature unlawful and unconstitutional.”

“Judicial review works on the basis that your individual right has been impeached,” he continued. “It is a benefit to you if the case goes your way, but it is also a benefit to the general public inasmuch as the law is made clear.”

The legal professional has stood firm behind the judicial review system. Many members – including ex-chief justice Andrew Li – stood up to former court of final appeal judge Henry Litton two years ago when he said the notion of subjecting the government to review was “totally absurd.”

Last year, Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma said decisions from judicial review cases serve as a guide to good governance, even if they may sometimes cause inconvenience.

Dykes also rejected critics’ claim that judicial review has been misused, saying that an applicant must jump through several hurdles – such as whether they have an arguable case – before their request is approved.

In fact, the High Court has never accepted more than half of applications between 2011 and 2016. The number of judicial review applications granted leave also takes up a tiny portion of the judiciary’s caseload.

Judicial review applicants who lack resources may seek legal aid. Critic often argue that it is a waste of public money, though they applauded cases favourable to the government, such as the recent oath row.

In response, Dykes said: “It is a half-baked and prejudiced argument. The fact is that legal aid is a requirement under the provisions of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and [in] criminal cases explicitly. It is implicitly the requirement in access to courts.” The Basic Law guarantees the right of access to the courts.

It is also unfair to accuse lawyers of benefiting from publicly funded litigation, Dykes said.

“You ask how much money is spent on healthcare budget [and] how much money goes to the pockets of doctors. That’s public money. Do they expect the doctors to work for free?” he said, adding that legal aid should be treated as a fundamental right, like health services.

He added that it is illogical to single out lawyers acting for applicants, as the government operates like a private client and its lawyers charge a market rate.

But Dykes stressed that it is more desirable for conflicts to be resolved in the legislature rather than by way of judicial review.

“A legislative resolution of the issue represents at least a coming together of views of people who purport to represent the population,” he said.

“The fact that people have recourse to the courts can often be the result of the indifference in the legislature to tackle the problem or not treating it in a way that is appropriate. In that case, you can only go to the court.”

However, he said a balance must be struck between majority rule and minority rights.

Citing same-sex marriage as an example, Dykes said: “You can never defer to public opinion on the matter of law. You can’t say: over my dead body – we can never have same-sex marriage. The court won’t accept that, because… the law exists to protect minority interests.”

“That’s why these cases end up in court – but better in legislature,” he added, on the condition that lawmakers will debate the issue sensibly.

In his office, Dykes keeps objects that remind him of his many courtroom battles, such as calligraphy by his Vietnamese refugee clients and a court drawing by a child with learning disabilities. He lost in some of these cases, and triumphed in others.

“The law is not a perfect profession,” he said. “The law is full of compromises. It is not perfect. So there is no perfect justice.”

“But a good lawyer can recognise a perfect injustice, and that would be the case if you could no longer go to courts and have someone argue your case.”

Internet comments:

- The best part of the Cary Lo Chun-yu story is not reported in English. Here it is:

(Apple Daily) January 6, 2017.

The appellant Cary Lo Chun-yu is the convener for the JR Group. He is studying for a masters degree in the School of Law, Hong Kong University. His JR Group includes regular JR Review petitioner Kwok Cheuk-kin. Lo said that he is filing a petition in order to defend rule of law in Hong Kong. At one point, he choked with sobs and said: "We do not have any political motives. We only want to get some public justice back for Hong Kong."

Why would Cary Lo 'choke with sobs' (哽咽)'? Clearly he recognized that a lot of Hongkongers like the idea of a Hong Kong Palace Museum, and they will get very upset at him if his Judicial Review stops the project. While everybody else wants to seal this great deal as quickly as possible, Cary Lo is the bookkeeper who wants all the procedures followed to the letter at the risk of losing the deal altogether.

- (Metro Daily) Cary Lo was accompanied to court by the King of Judicial Reviews Kwok Cheuk-kin. Lo said that he did not want society to be ripped apart on account of the judicial review. However, he emphasized that he had no choice. He apologized to the public even as he 'choked with sobs.'

- (Apple Daily) January 6, 2017. Cary Lo said that according to Section 19 of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Authority Ordinance, the authorities must consult the public in matters concerning the development or operations of arts and cultural facilities. Lo said that the government has conducted zero consultation on the Hong Kong Palace Museum. Furthermore, Rocco Yim was appointed the designer without bidding. Therefore, he suspects cronyism.

- How do you read the relevant law? Here it is in full:

West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance. Section 19 Public Consultation.

Without prejudice to section 21(3)(a), the Authority shall, in relation to matters concerning the development or operation of arts and cultural facilities, related facilities, ancillary facilities and any other matters as the Authority considers fit, consult the public at such time and in such manner as it considers appropriate.

Cary Lo's interpretation is this:

Without prejudice to section 21(3)(a), the Authority shall, in relation to matters concerning the development or operation of arts and cultural facilities, related facilities, ancillary facilities and any other matters as the Authority considers fit, consult the public at such time and in such manner as it considers appropriate.

That's very convenient for him, isn't it? Is the court going to accept this interpretation? One can only hope not. Those additional words are there for a reason, namely that nothing will ever get done if everything has to go through public consultations.

- Tai Kung Pao exposed the King of Judicial Reviews Kwok Cheuk-kin as ineligible for legal aid because his wife is a wealthy landlord (see Judicial Review As Political Tool (2015/12/3)). If Kwok applies again for legal aid while claiming that he is indigent, he is defrauding the government. And he won't put up his own money. So the King is dead, long live the King. And now we have Cary Lo to assume the throne as our King to destroy Hong Kong's economy as well as rip our social fabric into shreds. The show must go on.

- (SCMP) Hong Kong’s Palace Museum: why we shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth. By Michael Chugani. January 10, 2017.

Let’s imagine a situation. Suppose the Queen consented to the Crown Jewels being displayed at a purpose-built site at the West Kowloon Cultural District. Imagine former British governor Chris Patten quietly negotiated the loan as a goodwill gesture to the city Britain once ruled.

Or let’s imagine Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor won French approval for the Louvre’s famous items, including the Mona Lisa, to be showcased here. Would there be a furious backlash that the public was not consulted?

I think most of us know the answer to that question. Deep down, we also know the outcry over a Hong Kong version of the Palace Museum at the WKCD is fuelled not by the government bypassing a public consultation, but that it is being gifted by Beijing.

What other society would fume over a new museum that displays priceless relics at no cost whatsoever to the public? But we are a society at war with itself, trapped in a quest for an identity that departs from reality. We are unable to fully come to terms with being a part of China 20 years after it became a fact.

Contempt for our communist rulers runs so deep in some of us that we even resist their gift of Chinese artefacts that predate communism by centuries. I can’t help thinking that if Patten instead of Lam had arranged the museum, there may not even have been a backlash.

Lam is mocked as Beijing’s new lapdog by the opposition – which needs an enemy to remain relevant – after she hinted she may run for chief executive now that Leung Chun-ying intends to step down. But if Lam had arranged a display of the Crown Jewels instead of relics from China, the outcry over a skipped consultation would most likely be muted, if it even materialised.

When I heard about the museum, my immediate reaction was things were finally moving at the WKCD after years of delays. We don’t need to consult the public on everything, only things that most affect them. Consultations get us stuck, as evidenced by the Central Market revitalisation. Our officials are paid to make decisions.

I thought Hongkongers would welcome the museum plan. But no. This is what we have become, a society so addicted to political confrontation that we even pick a fight with the bearer of a gift.

- (SCMP) Shutting out the best and brightest from public service. By Alex Lo. January 12, 2017.

Something is seriously wrong when we start attacking our best and brightest.

When you are a leading authority in science, medicine or architecture, it’s inevitable that the government or other public bodies will ask for your help from time to time. Yet by such associations, some of our most talented citizens – who often take up jobs out of a sense of civic duty – have become collateral damage. They risk becoming targets of criticism, libel, bullying and mockery by anti-government groups if they get involved in politically controversial issues.

Take Rocco Yim Sen-kee, one of the few home-grown architects with an international reputation, and certainly our most bankable. His designs on the mainland and across the city speak for themselves. But his being hand-picked to lead the design of the Hong Kong Palace Museum at the arts hub in West Kowloon without a public tender means he is now being dragged through the mud with accusations of cronyism.

“Would you prefer a public tender that picks the one who offers the lowest bid price or someone with credible experience?” Yim asked. My question exactly.

The real reason for the attacks is that the planned museum is a joint mainland-Hong Kong project spearheaded by Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who may well become the city’s next leader. That’s why the knives are out. Still, you may think the museum project’s bad public relations make everyone involved a fair game.

Okay, what about Professor Lo Chung-mau, a pioneer in liver transplants? He was hounded by trolls on the internet and students on campus in 2015 for allegedly faking his injuries when a University of Hong Kong council meeting was stormed by rowdy student activists. His HKU colleague, Professor Yuen Kwok-yung, the famous virologist, was smart enough to quit the council before radical students turned it into a war zone.

Earlier, those HKU Red Guards practically chased their previous vice chancellor Tsui Lap-chee – a world-famous geneticist who discovered the cystic fibrosis gene – from office for his alleged mishandling of heavy police security that surrounded a visit by then vice-premier Li Keqiang (李克強) to the Pok Fu Lam campus in 2011.

If this kind of political bullying continues, public sector service will be left only to the cynical, mediocre, sycophantic and talentless – or else to shameless populists and rabble rousers who claim to speak for “the people”.

(HK01) January 8, 2017.

It has been widely reported within political circles that Hong Kong Macau Affairs Office director Wang Guangya came down to Shenzhen on Thursday to meet secretly with John Tsang in order to persuade him not to enter the Chief Executive election. John Tsang's campaign team has not denied this story. It turns about that this was the third attempt within a week or so. On the first occasion at the end of December, a close acquaintance of John Tsang served as the "special envoy" for the Central Government to dissuade him from entering the Chief Executive election. Instead, John Tsang should be serving the nation elsewhere, including become a vice-president of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and/or a senior position in the One Road One Belt department soon to be set up by China. However, John Tsang refused instantly.

Next, China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoming met with John Tsang to convince him. Zhang was also unsuccessful. Finally, Wang Guangya came down to meet with John Tsang in Shenzhen. "This time, Wang was a lot firmer and made things very explicit. But John Tsang stood firm and refused to give up his election hopes.

According to an informed source, John Tsang wrote a letter to senior Central Government officials to ask for the "green light." In the letter, Tsang emphasized that he is not entering the Chief Executive race for personal gains or vanity, but for the sake of Hong Kong governance. He said that he cannot withdraw at this stage after preparing for everything already. He hopes that the Central Government can appreciate his intentions and give him support. According to information, the Central Government is still considering whether it is possible to dissuade Tsang at the last moment.

Internet comments:

- The Central Government doesn't want John Tsang to run in the Chief Executive election? Please refer to CAP 554 Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance

Section: 7 Corrupt conduct to bribe candidates or prospective candidates

(1) A person engages in corrupt conduct at an election if the person corruptly-

(a) offers an advantage to another person as an inducement for the other person-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the other person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or
(iii) if the other person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, not to use the other person's best endeavours to promote the election of the other person; or

(b) offers an advantage to another person as a reward-

(i) for having stood, or not stood, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the other person was nominated as a candidate at the election, for having withdrawn the nomination; or
(iii) if the other person was or has been nominated as a candidate at the election, for not having used the other person's best endeavours to promote the election of the other person; or

(c) offers an advantage to another person as an inducement for the other person to get, or try to get, a third person-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the third person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or
(iii) if the third person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, not to use the third person's best endeavours to promote the election of the third person; or

(d) offers an advantage to another person as a reward for having got, or having tried to get, a third person-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the third person was nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or
(iii) if the third person was or has been nominated as a candidate at the election, not to use the third person's best endeavours to promote the election of the third person; or

(e) solicits or accepts an advantage as an inducement-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or
(iii) if the person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, not to use the person's best endeavours to promote the election of the person; or

(f) solicits or accepts an advantage as a reward-

(i) for having stood, or not stood, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the person was nominated as a candidate at the election, for having withdrawn the nomination; or
(iii) if the person was or has been nominated as a candidate at the election, for not having used the person's best endeavours to promote the election of the person; or

(g) solicits or accepts an advantage as an inducement to get, or try to get, another person-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the other person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or
(iii) if the other person has been nominated as a candidate at the election, not to use the other person's best endeavours to promote the election of the other person; or

(h) solicits or accepts an advantage as a reward for having got, or having tried to get, another person-

(i) to stand, or not to stand, as a candidate at the election; or
(ii) if the other person was nominated as a candidate at the election, to withdraw the nomination; or
(iii) if the other person was or has been nominated as a candidate at the election, not to use the other person's best endeavours to promote the election of the other person.

(2) For the purposes of this section-

(a) a person offers an advantage if the person confers, undertakes to confer or shows a willingness to confer, an advantage on another person; and
(b) a person solicits an advantage if the person asks for, or shows a willingness to receive, an advantage, either for the person's own benefit or for the benefit of another person; and
(c) a person accepts an advantage if the person receives or obtains an advantage, or agrees to receive or obtain an advantage, either for the person's own benefit or for the benefit of another person.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person is taken to have offered an advantage even though the offer was made by another person, but only if the other person was acting with the person's authority. That authority may be conferred expressly or by implication.

Someone should rush out immediately to file a police report against Wang Guangya, Zhang Xiaoming, the unnamed "special envoy" friend of John Tsang, etc.

- (Wen Wei Po) January 9, 2017. In the Bauhinia magazine interview, Wang Guangya listed four basic criteria for the HKSAR chief executive: The chief executive, he said, should “love China, love Hong Kong,” someone who Beijing can “trust,” who is capable of governing and who is supported by the Hong Kong people, in that order.

It is no surprise that Wang Guangya should meet with potential candidates to assess them on the basis of these four criteria. He has already met with retired judge Woo Kwok-hing who declined to divulge the details of their meeting.

- If and when Wang Guangya met with John Tsang, what happened is up to the two participants to reveal and confirm. It is not up to anonymous sources to say this or that. But if Apple Daily reporters without Home Visit Cards can write detailed reports of who said what during Politburo meetings, everything is possible.

- (Bastille Post) An expert points out that the AIIB offer to John Tsang is full of holes. Whoever made this up is not familiar with Chinese and international organizational systems. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is an international organization like the Asian Development Bank. China may be the country which initially proposed the formation of the organization and also the country which invested the most amount of money, but it does not have the right to nominate all the members of the senior management. Instead, these job appointments are allocated according to the amounts of subscription of individual countries.

In terms of voting power (based upon the amount of subscription) of member nations, China has 28.7% of the votes which makes it the largest bloc. Next come India at 8.3%, Russia at 6.5%, Germany at 4.6%, Australia at 3.8%, South Korea at 3.9%, Indonesia at 3.5%, France at 3.5%, United Kingdom at 3.2%, Italy at 2.8%, Turkey at 2.8%, Saudi Arabia at 2.7%, etc. The United States, Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong are not members of the AIIB.

The AIIB president is Jin Liqun, former vice-minister of the Chinese Ministry of Finance. He had previously served China at the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. Because China is the largest shareholder, they should be allowed to name a Chinese citizen with the appropriate credentials as the AIIB president.

The five AIIB vice presidents are:

Danny Alexander (United Kingdom): vice president and corporate secretary

Thierry de Lonquemar (France): vice president and chief financial officer

DJ Pandian (India): vice president and chief investment officer

Joachim von Amsberg (Germany): vice president - policy and strategy

Luky Eok Wuryanto (Indonesia): vice president and chief administration officer

The allocation is based upon the amounts of subscription, geographical balance, etc. How in the world is China going to create a new vice president position to give to a Chinese citizen from non-member Hong Kong for reasons of Chinese domestic politics!? There is no surer way of destroying mutual trust within the AIIB!

- And in what way is John Tsang qualified to become an AIIB vice-president like these others? The other vice-presidents are either experts in national infrastructure investment (in India, Indonesia and the United Kingdom) or worked in leadership roles at the World Bank or Asian Development Bank. John Tsang is several grades lower than them in terms of experience and stature.

- If John Tsang shows up to work as AIIB vice-president, he should not expect special treatment because he is the boss's nephew. He will be ostracized because everybody knows that he is unqualified.

- In the relative scheme of things, Hong Kong is just Hong Kong, but the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is about China showing how it works with the rest of the world in a leadership role. China can afford to let Hong Kong fall into chaos, but it cannot allow the AIIB to fail.

- Let see how many cars will be involved in this chain collision. It begins with Wan Chin:


Two breaking news item today. The first is that Beijing is not allowing John Tsang to resign, but they promised to swap an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank vice-presidency for not running for Chief Executive. John Tsang rejected the deal. It seems that this agent for the United States-United Kingdom intends to fight it out with the agent for the Chinese Communists.

- Because the HK01 report says that the John Tsang campaign team has not denied this report and they have not responded to inquires from HK01, it is most likely that this rumor was created and spread by John Tsang's campaign team. If it were not true, they should have issued an immediate denial. Instead, by letting everybody else accepting this to be true, they are sullying the names of the Central Government, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, Wang Guangya, Zhang Xiaoming, etc. They will also convince the Central Government that John Tsang cannot be trusted with the best interests of China and Hong Kong in mind.

- On January 19, 2017, John Tsang announced his intention to run for Chief Executive. He was asked about the AIIB vice-presidency offer. Tsang said that the AIIB is an international organization and not a Chinese bank, so this cannot be true.

- He could have said this right at the beginning. But he wouldn't.

(Oriental Daily) January 7, 2017.

All parents and elders about their children. If they scold a child, it is only because they care. Recently a video appeared on the Internet. A boy was told by a female elder to stop playing with his mobile phone. He immediately started kicking then elder, using even the sidekick. The woman tried to block and evade, while trying to explain and implore the boy to stop the attack. It is tough being a parent nowadays, and you wonder if the boy will ever learn.

Video: https://www.facebook.com/100010611151221/videos/369054073458295/

In the video, the boy is probably of junior high school age. He started by screaming "You are complaining about me!" and then used his right foot to kick the a middle-aged woman. An older woman tried to separate them. But the boy turned around and used his left book to kick the middle-aged woman. The kicked woman said: "Nobody is scolding you. Just telling you not to play with your mobile phone." But the boy did not stop his attack. He kicked three more times. Every kick made full contact. The woman looked hapless.

It was said that the incident took place somewhere in Macau.

Internet comments:

- When the authorities (namely, the adult woman) tried to ban the boy from exercising his freedom, he valiantly resisted to defend his rights. In so doing, he has also attained immortal Internet fame.

- Now that he is famous, it is time to start a crowdfunding campaign to raise money for ... what? ... vindication of June 4th; Judicial Review to stop the Judicial Review on DQ4; ICAC investigation of Macau casino licensing procedures; ...

- And if he is identified by Internet users and persecuted as a result, he gets to join Amos Yee in America for political asylum.

- There is a Chinese saying: 養兒不教父之過 (when the father gave birth to a son but refuses to teach him anything, then it is the father's fault).

- Along comes pro-democracy writer Ko Wai-yin: "I have to give praise to this Kung Fu Kid. Some people deserve to die!"

- Learning by example on television:

Hong Kong valiant warrior showing the right kicking technique

- Hong Kong kids love peace, espouse freedom, want democracy, defend rule of law, respect human rights and oppose violence. Therefore they are incapable of kicking other persons. This particular kid must be a mainland Cantonese-speaking locust.

- Where did this take place? Behind the woman is a hydrant with the words 消防栓 (fire department hydrant). That term is used in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. In mainland China, the term is 防火栓 (fire-prevention hydrant). The people in the video speak Cantonese, so this should rule out Taiwan. So the incident took place in Hong Kong or Macau.

- When the Kung Fu Kid grows up, he will likely become like this young commentator at the RTHK City Forum. The subject is the Hong Kong Palace Museum. (YouTube) The content isn't the issue; the style is.

Transcript: "On the issue of the value of the cultural artefacts ... actually, the cultural artefacts in Taiwan ... such as the jade white cabbage ... they have all high values ... by contrast, looking at your Palace Museum in mainland China ... they are basically all trash! If you want to have some exhibits in Hong Kong, then they are just the garbage among the garbage! I am not targeting you! It's all garbage!"

- The value of a cultural artefact may be largely subjective in nature. You may like the jade white cabbage but someone else doesn't. Chacun à son goût. Objectively speaking, it is a fact that this young punk cannot afford to buy any cultural artefact coming from the Forbidden Palace Museum on the open auction market. You can call something garbage and that is your right. But the rest of the world is putting a high value on it, far more than you can ever afford.

- 40,000 visit the Beijing Forbidden Palace Museum each day. These flies came from all over the world to enjoy the 'garbage', right?

- Is this going to help or hurt Taiwan? The National Palace Museum (Taipei) has 22% of the Forbidden City collection, although some of the pieces represent the very best. If the Taiwan race is completely different from the Chinese race, then why is the Republic of Taiwan clinging onto looted Chinese treasures? Hand them back to their rightful owners already!

(Apple Daily Hong Kong with video) January 7, 2017.


Photo uploaded by Joshua Wong


Photo uploaded by Nathan Law


Happy days are here!

The Taiwan political party New Power Party invited Hong Kong legislative councilors Chu Hoi Dick, Yiu Chung-yim and Nathan Law and Demosisto secretary-general Joshua Wong to attend a forum in Taipei. When Law and Wong got to the airport on Friday night, they were met with a large number of pro-establishment demonstrators who called them "Chinese traitors/running dogs!" The two gave a live broadcast on Facebook. In the video, it can be seen that the aunties among the demonstrators were using obscene curses, that many of them used placards to conceal their faces and that the airport was very noisy and chaotic as a result.

Joshua Wong said that he was surprised that there were more than 50 "patriotic" demonstrators out there. He did not know how these people knew their departure time. "When Martin Lee and Anson Chan came back after meeting with the American vice-president in 2014, there weren't as many people as now." The demonstrators went on for more than one hour. Wong said that the demonstrators had nothing of substance to say apart from chanting insults. "This shows that they have poor quality. Basically they were getting paid to do." "These hired actors didn't say anything beyond 'Chinese traitors', 'running dogs' and 'nation betrayors.' I feel sad for them." Wong also learned that the Taiwan version of the Love Hong Kong group -- "I Love Republic of China" aka Chinese Patriotic Association -- will be waiting for them upon arrival.

Nathan Law said that the patriotic organizations ran a Cultural Revolution-like campaign against them inside the airport. As soon as they arrived for the boarding process, they were surrounded by several aunties who said: "It's them. It's them." They were followed by a large number of 'patriots'. So Law and Wong asked the airline workers to call the police. "You can see what happened next." He said,, "I believe that if I were on the streets and not at the airport, it may not be so easy. They can rush me anytime, either cursing me, punching me or kicking me." He believed that these people are "Nazi-like crazy patriots" "who absolutely will punch and kick people, endangering their personal safety."

Nathan Law said that his own political concepts and beliefs are completely not supported by patriotism/nationalism. "Therefore calling me a traitor won't bother me at all." He asked: "Why does society ignore this kind of fervor? Why do they allow this kind of mass campaign to heap insults and abuse at people? We want to send the message to the next generation that we are pursuing fairness, openness, diversity and civic quality." He said that he has learned that he will be facing attacks by the I Love Republic of China group when he arrives in Taipei.

(Apple Daily Taiwan with video) January 7, 2017.

Almost 200 members of the I Love Republic of China group greeted Nathan Law and Joshua Wong when they arrived. They chanted "Hong Kong Independence elements go home!" More than 100 police officers were at the scene. When Law and Wong stepped into the arrival hall, several unidentified men broke through the police line and wanted to attack the two. Law and Wong started running away. Fortunately the police stopped those men, and the entourage was able to leave by car.

According to a member of I Love Republic of China, they learned that Law and Wong were coming to Taipei to attend a forum organized by the New Power Party for the purpose of unifying the Hong Kong and Taiwan independence forces. Therefore they called their members out to demonstrate at the airport. He said that the people of Taiwan should decide whether Taiwan becomes independent or not. At this time, Taiwan needs to revive its economy and they do not want Hong Kong independence activists such as Joshua Wong to come to Taiwan to cause trouble.

(Oriental Daily with video) January 7, 2017.

About 200 demonstrators holding placards that said "Hong Kong independence go home!" "Taiwan independence is a dead end!" "Hong Kong independence is infeasible" gathered outside the Tao Yuan Airport arrival hall. The authorities arranged for more than 100 police officers to be present plus plainclothes police officers to protect the persons of Joshua Wong and others. When the demonstrators saw Wong and company, they rushed up to protest. Some of these excited demonstrators tried to get close to Wong and company, but the police stopped them. Wong and company were scared into running away.

(SCMP) January 7, 2017.

Lawmakers from Hong Kong and Taiwan said their common ground was a desire for democracy and social justice, not “collusion for political independence” as Beijing had suggested.

Hong Kong lawmakers Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Edward Yiu Chung-yim, Eddie Chu Hoi-dick and three legislators from Taiwan’s New Power Party made the appeal at a conference in Taipei on Sunday.

It came after a spokesman from China’s Taiwan Affairs Office on December 28 described the two-day event as “an attempt made by Taiwan’s independence forces to collude with Hong Kong’s independence advocates”, and that such actions were “destined to fail” and those involved would get “their heads broken and covered with blood”.

The conference was besieged by pro-China protesters who at times turned violent. And upon arriving in Taiwan on Saturday, student activist leader Joshua Wong Chi-fung was almost assaulted at the airport. He was hurried to a waiting vehicle by police officers.

Wong described it as “very strange” that their detractors knew the flight they were on and the hotel they were staying in.

“But that will not stop our exchanges with Taiwan since we both face the same China factor, and we hope [China] would understand that exchange of ideas between democratically elected lawmakers is perfectly normal,” Wong said.

Law said since the attack, Taiwanese police had beefed up protection for the lawmakers while in public places and in transit.

Huang Kuo-chang, a member of Taiwan’s legislature and chairman of the NPP, which organised the event, urged the national security department to investigate the organising forces behind the protests against Hong Kong independence on the island.

“It is unfortunate that the man in black [man filmed trying to assault Wong at the airport] has come to symbolise the image of China internationally,” NPP lawmaker Hsu Yung-ming said, adding that such publicity would only harm cross-strait relations.

At the conference, the lawmakers discussed the challenges they faced during their transformation from social activists to legislators, and in trying to effect change within the establishment.

While both the Taiwan and Hong Kong lawmakers vowed to form closer bonds, Law said there were no concrete plans for future exchanges between the groups.

“We are still not sure about the outcome of a judicial review now, so it is premature to say how any further cooperation will take shape before that,” he said.

Law said none of the visiting lawmakers had been contacted or approached by the Taiwanese government or the ruling Democratic Progress Party during their trip.

(Oriental Daily) January 8, 2017.

Today Joshua Wong flew back to Hong Kong at around 1pm. More than twenty demonstrators were present, holding banners such as "Hong Kong is my home, Hong Kong independence is destroying it." When they saw Wong, they followed him and shouted "Running dog" and "traitor." Wong said nothing and hurried to catch a taxi and leave.

The demonstrators returned to the arrival hall and waited for the Yiu Chung-yim who was due on the 2pm flight. They failed to find him. According to Mr. Ng, they are ordinary citizens. A grandma said that she came because her grandson was misled by Wong and others to join the Occupy movement.

(Oriental Daily with video) January 8, 2017.

Nathan Law arrived at around 10 pm at the Hong Kong International Airport arrival hall tonight. More than a dozen demonstrators rushed up to surround him, yelling "Traitor" and other slogans. It was chaos. Nathan Law did not fight back. The demonstrators pulled off his shirt. His glasses flew away. People were punching and kicking. The police and security guards interceded in vain. An excited demonstrator tossed what appeared to be a cup of milk tea at Nathan Law. Beside Nathan Law, reporters and security guards were also splashed. The clash went on for almost half an hour. The security guards eventually escorted Nathan Law onto a taxi to take him down to the police station to lodge a complaint and get a medical examination.'

(Oriental Daily) January 10, 2017.

Nathan Law admitted that the police told him that he can use the VIP passageway to leave. But since Law had promised to give a press conference and he said that the police are obliged to protect citizens including legislators, he went into the arrival lobby. Law said that he was attacked in the security-intensive airport, so this shows that security is poor unless the police deliberately allowed the scene to take place.

Late last night, the police responded to Law's charges. Firstly, the airport is a private facility run by the Airport Authority, just like Hong Kong University campus or the Legislative Council. The police intervenes only at the request of the airport management or when public order/peace is being disturbed (but not before). The police acknowledged that Nathan Law told them that he would be meeting with the press in the arrival lobby. Their risk assessment was that this was a bad idea, and they said so to Nathan Law. However, Nathan Law did not listen to their advice. The police said that they were in contact with the airport authorities and the security company. As soon as the clash started, the police intervened immediately to separate the two sides and escort the relevant persons to depart.

(EJ Insight) January 10, 2017.

At a news conference Monday, Law showed reporters photos of the purported injuries suffered by him during the airport incident, which took place as he was returning to Hong Kong after a controversial trip to Taiwan. In the photos, injury marks could be seen in areas near his chest and arms as well as on thighs near the pelvic area, with obvious scratch marks and bruises. Expressing outrage, the young democracy activist called on the government and the police to act against political violence, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reports.

- The Hong Kong police have just announced that they have arrested a 63-year-old woman for the assault of Nathan Law. Bwahhhhhh! I can't wait for the trial of Grandma, when the 23-year-old valiant warrior Nathan Law will have to describe how he was dismantled by Grandma (see Zhang Ziyi in Couching Tiger, Hidden Dragon)!

- (Hong Kong Free Press) January 16, 2017. Two men, aged 53 and 71, were arrested two days after the attack for allegedly assaulting three reporters covering the protest. A 68-year-old woman was apprehended the following day on suspicion of assaulting Law and participating in an unlawful assembly. A fourth suspect, a 71-year-old man, was arrested last Friday. On Monday, Hong Kong police arrested a woman surnamed Kwong, 67, in Tseung Kwan O. Including Kwong, police have apprehended five in connection with the attack so far. A spokesperson said they are not ruling out the possibility of further arrests.

- (SilentMajorityHK) July 8, 2017. Five persons will be on trial for unlawful assembly: 53-year-old Indonesian delivery man Giok Kheng, 72-year-old retired man Tong Fat-cheung, 68-year-old housewife Lam Kam-sheung, 71-year-old retired man Lau Pit-chuen and 67-year-old housewife Kwong Kwai-sim. Previously Lau Pit-chuen had said: "What is wrong with opposing Hong Kong independence?" Lau and Tong insisted that they do not want any lawyers to represent them, and they denied the charges. Lau said in court today: "I plead not guilty. I am innocent. I do not want a lawyer to represent me."

Videos

(FTV video) Reception at Tao Yuan Airport.

(TVB) Dual coverage in Hong Kong/Taipei

(Cable TV) Nathan Law returns to Hong Kong
(Facebook) Nathan Law returns to Hong Kong
(9UP News) Nathan Law returns to Hong Kong
(TVB) Dual coverage in Hong Kong/Taipei
(Facebook) Nathan Law sliding down the stairs

Internet comments:

- In the Apple Daily Hong Kong report, they cited CAP 483A Airport Authority Bylaw Article 17 Nuisance and Annoyance:

(1) No person shall conduct himself in any part of the Bylaw Area so as to cause a nuisance or annoyance to other persons.

(2) Except with the permission of the Authority, no person shall-

(a) undertake any musical, theatrical or other performance in whatever form or manner; or
(b) hold any meeting or assembly which causes any obstruction to the proper use or operation of the Airport.

They could have added Article 19 Restriction On Use Of Language And Behavior as well:

No person shall at any time while in the Bylaw Area use any threatening, abusive, obscene or offensive language, or behave in a riotous, disorderly, indecent or offensive manner.

Muahahahah!!! Now where was Apple Daily when we needed them to cite the Airport Authority Bylaw for the demonstration against CY Leung's daughter's luggage? Did these people cause obstruction to the proper use or operation of the Airport too?

- The whole episode is full of ironies if you contrast what happened today with previous incidents. Nathan Law said that he only felt sorry for the demonstrators who were paid for the job and were not even given meaningful slogans to chant. He completely forgets what he himself did many times before (see, for example, Down With Zhang Dejiang!), namely, taking useless and meaningless actions.


Nathan Law valiantly resisting the Hong Kong Police as he told Zhang Dejiang "I don't want One Belt One Road!"

- Here is an Internet forgery of a Nathan Law statement:

Statement:
Encountered protests at the Hong Kong and Taiwan airports.
It was much more troublesome in Taiwan.
The people of Taiwan are uncouth and uncultured, without even the minimal manners to greet guests.
I will never step on this barbarian forsaken land hereafter.

- Why are so many Facebook users sharing and liking this fake statement? Because they think that this is exactly the sort of ill-considered thing Nathan Law would say, given his past record.

- This tale of two cities showed the difference in cultures. In Hong Kong, Law and Wong said that the demonstrators were pathetic paid workers. In Taiwan, the very pathetic Law and Wong fled for their lives when the men in black rushed up.

- The running dogs ran away like dogs!

- What pearls of wisdom does our Global Thinker have to offer us today?

- Nathan Law reflected that Hong Kong has degenerated into the chaos of the Cultural Revolution with those fifty aunties demonstrating at the Hong Kong International Airport. Can we get a quotation from him about the status of the situation in Taiwan? Is there a grade lower than the Cultural Revolution? Rwanda? The Holocaust? The Armenian Genocide?

- When will the patriotic organizations in Hong Kong upgrade themselves to match their Taiwan counterparts?

- Oriental Daily's story carried this photo

Did you notice that there is a rectangular grey area in the white banner?
The banner reads:
XXXXXXXXXXX Hong Kong independence
Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Yiu Chung-yim, Chu Hoi Dick, scram back to Hong Kong

Wouldn't you want to know what XXXXXXXXXXX is?

Here it is:

XXXXXXXXXXX is "Fuck your mother's cunt!"

- (Wen Wei Po) January 9, 2017.

Pro-green Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je ordrered the police to "defend our guests from Hong Kong well." So more than one hundred police officers were deployed around the conference site. They drove the demonstrators to the other side of street. At around 11am, the demonstrators moved to protest outside the entrance. Instead of being merely defensive, the police charged the demonstrators to force them to leave. An old man was pushed to the ground, hitting the back of his head on the ground first. The old man fell unconscious as his face turned paled. A demonstrators administered emergency aid. The demonstrators decried the police, who charged into the crowd and pulled away a number of old persons.

A couple of minutes later, the old man came to. He was unable to get up on his own. An ambulance took him to the hospital. According to information, the old man is 85-year-old Chiu Hsia-hsin, who is a member of I Love Republic of China.

At around noon, the conference was over and only a dozen or so demonstrators were still around. But the Hong Kong self-determination delegation waited for the organizers to arrange for several cars to pick them up at the back entrance.

- Joshua Wong said that he was surprised by 200 people chanting "Down with Chinese traitor!" at the Taiwan airport. He said that to say that he advocates Hong Kong independence is a smear job. That's correct. Wong has always said that:

(Local Press) Joshua Wong article in TIME magazine: The people of Hong Kong want to have the right for self-determination.

Yes, he wants self-determination (自決). He does not want independence (獨立). That's wishful thinking on this side. Maybe he wants to split hairs, but other people see self-determination (自決) = independence  (獨立).

- Still other people see self-determination (自決) = suicide (自絕).

- By self-determination, Joshua Wong thinks that there should be a referendum by the people of Hong Kong to determine their future. What are the options on that referendum? Hong Kong independence is one of the choices.

So this is like someone explaining that he is not advocating the legalization of crack cocaine. Rather he wants the people to hold a referendum, and one of the choices is "Legalize crack cocaine."

- Here is Joshua Wong and friends standing at attention to the Chinese national anthem. Can you understand why people don't believe that he is not working towards Hong Kong independence?

- (SCMP) January 7, 2017.

Hong Kong student activist Joshua Wong Chi-fung was under Taiwan police protection on Saturday afternoon, after a failed attempt by a pro-China protester to assault him as he arrived in the island state in the early hours.

Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je pledged that police would “protect all guests”, adding that violence had no place in a civilised society like Taiwan’s.

Wong had been set to attend a seminar organised by a local political party over the weekend.

About 200 protesters from a pro-China group in Taiwan gathered at the arrival hall of Taipei’s Taoyuan International Airport at midnight. They chanted slogans deriding Wong, and Hong Kong legislators Nathan Law Kwun-chung and Edward Yiu Chung-yim – who arrived on the same flight at 12.30am – as “independence scum”, saying they were not welcome in Taiwan.

There were about 100 police officers, but a man broke through their lines and almost punched Wong, who was hurried into a vehicle in time.

“I wasn’t expecting [pro-China protesters to show up] be it in Hong Kong or Taiwan,” Wong said on Saturday afternoon at the panel discussion, organised by Taiwan’s New Power Party, a rising political force born of the student-led Sunflower Movement in 2014, that put a brake on a trade pact with China.

Wong said it was the first time he had encountered such protests in Taiwan, having visited the self-governing island for exchanges with local political parties last year.

He and the lawmakers were under close police protection after the attack, and would be throughout their stay, a police inspector said.

Before their departure for Taipei, Wong and Law encountered about 50 pro-China protesters as they checked in at Hong Kong International Airport.

Armed with banners that read “Chinese traitors, running dogs, human scum”, the crowd shouted obscenities at the pair in the departure hall, without any apparent interference.

Outside the seminar venue in Taipei, scores of protesters – many of whom wore masks and sunglasses – voiced their opposition to what they called the collusion of “independence scum from Taiwan and Hong Kong”.

Dozens of police officers guarded the venue, and set up roadblocks nearby.

The use of violence by pro-China groups in Taiwan – some known to be affiliated with local triads – on their political enemies was unheard of even during the Sunflower Movement, said Lin Fei-fan, one of that movement’s leaders.

“But this time they tried to openly assault these lawmakers from Hong Kong who travelled all the way here,” he said.

New Power Party chairman Huang Kuo-chang said the seminar could not have happened in Hong Kong, as he and a few fellow party members had been denied Hong Kong visas in the past.

Wong, Law and Yiu will be joined on Sunday by lawmaker Eddie Chu Hoi-dick, Huang and Lin, as well as members of the country’s legislature for a panel discussion on how pro-democracy parties in Hong Kong and Taiwan can learn from each other.

Yiu and Chu said they had no plan to meet any other political parties during their stay, and that they had not had any contact with the Taiwanese government.

- (Wen Wei Po) January 9, 2017. Conference quotations.

Joshua Wong: Hong Kong and Taiwan both face the China factor and the interference of the Beijing government. A solution can be found by more democratic exchange.

Nathan Law: I am open-minded about Hong Kong independence and Taiwan independence.

Chu Hoi Dick: Discussing democratic self-determination has broader and deeper concerns than discussing Hong Kong independence and Taiwan independence. It is the pursuit of basic human rights and values.

Chu Hoi Dick: The Hong Kong Basic Law limits the future choices of Hong Kong. The road of democracy appears to be blocked ... it should be re-examined. The articles that give too much power to Beijing should be amended.

Freddy Lim: If a small group of people in Zhongnanhai think that they can decide the fates of 1.3 billion Chinese people plus Taiwan and Hong Kong, then they are like flies hitting the wall. They will end up bleeding in their heads.

Huang Kuo-chang: Faced with the oppression and armed threats of Beijing, both Hong Kong and Taiwan need to pursue "independence."

Hsu Yung-ming: I was ecstatic when I heard that the Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson criticized this event as the linking up of Taiwan independence and Hong Kong independence.

- Joshua Wong's Facebook

After doing media interviews in the morning, I took the flight back to Hong Kong. As a university student, I need to go back this afternoon to take an exam.
I just learned that Nathan Law and three companions had rocks thrown at them when they left the office of Freddy Lim. Fortunately they were not hit. This is incredible.
Why do 'compatriots' who love the Nation and the Party have to stoop so low as throw rocks at political dissidents?

- Yes, indeed. Why do pro-independence activists who love Hong Kong and Democracy have to stoop so low as throw bricks at political dissidents?

- What university gives exams on Sundays?

- When the rocks hit the wall, they broke into egg white, egg yolk and egg shells. What kind of rock was it?

Photo: New Power Party's Hsu Yung-ming Facebook

- (HKG Pao) A large number of Hong Kong citizens responded to a call to hold a reception for Nathan Law tonight. At around 10pm, Nathan Law came out by himself. About 30 to 40 citizens rushed up and cursed him out as "Chinese traitor" and "running dog". It was quite chaotic. Under the protection of the security guards and police officers, Nathan Law attempted to reach the taxi stand, which was a mere 30 meters away. They struggled for almost 15 minutes. During the process, Nathan Law did not say anything. He dashed down a narrow interior stairwell, but slipped and slid for a few steps. The citizens raced down an exterior stairwell to the taxi stand. Ultimately Nathan Law was able to leave. According to information, he went to the police station to file a report and get a medical examination.

- Whenever something like this occurs to a government official, the immediate reaction of the pan-democrats is: "The person should reflect on his own mistakes to see why he is being ambushed and attacked everywhere that he goes." Indeed.

- Summary report to the US Consulate General:

The democratically elected Legco representatives went to the airport to go to Taiwan. Citizens spontaneously organized themselves to give them a warm send-off.
As soon as they arrived at the Taipei Airport, citizens there were already waiting to welcome these representatives of the people of Hong Kong.
The next day, they went to the conference venue and were greeted by even more citizens. Some of the citizens used megaphones to express their very strong feelings.
After the conference, the representatives of the people of Hong Kong went home.
When they arrived back in Hong Kong, they were given heroes' welcome. Their excited fans even ripped up their shirts, and poured expensive local drinks on them in accordance with local custom.
All in all, this project was worth the dark money from our secret budget line to fund.

- (Apple Daily) January 8, 2017.

Nathan Law falling on his ass during The Great Escape

Photograph of the screen on the mobile phone of a female demonstrator. The screen shows the WeChat group "January 6 and January 8 ... airport demonstration group". The latest message says: "All co-workers should proceed to Exit A."

The NOW TV cameraman was injured on his finger.

- This video (Facebook) has been shared and viewed million of times by now. It is a short 19 seconds. The video began with the grand appearance of Nathan Law, using his right hand to brush his hair back so that the audience can get a clear view. Next, a security guard gave Nathan Law a shove in the back to cause him to slide down the stairs on his ass.

If this security guard was trying to help but unintentionally caused Nathan Law to lose balance, this is an Act of God.

If this security guard intentionally gave Nathan Law a big shove to send him flying down the stairs, he should receive the Hero of Socialist Labour medal.

- For falling and sliding on his ass, Nathan Law received the coveted Golden Monster award from the users at the Golden Discussion Forum. The name of the award is a homonym of the phrase: "This time you were indeed Pok Gai!"

- In uploading the photo from the departure hall at the Hong Kong International Airport, he commented: "There is no need to be serious about these patriotic hooligans seeing us off. But if you think about it at the next deeper level, it is really very sad."


After sliding down the stairs, Nathan Law should be saying: "There is no need to be serious about these slippery steps. But if you think about it at the next deeper level, it is really very retarded."

- Karma: What goes around, comes around.

- Normally the sign says something like "Caution: Slippery surface."

For Nathan Law, the sign is changed to "Caution, slip" to cue him to slip down the stairs for the television cameras.

- In the case of Edward Leung Tin-kei versus Ta Kung Pao, the Journalists Association said that citizens should not assault or prevent reporters from gathering news and that reporters should not assault or insult the news subjects. The NOW TV cameraman is showing everybody the cut on his finger. Oh, you poor baby!

Here is the video of what happened before as taken by another cameraman. The cameraman in his OLD NAVY American-flag white t-shirt is screaming "What the fuck are you fucking about!? Fuck your mother!!!" Then the middle-aged man in green told him: "I saw you! I saw you say XXX someone's mother. I saw you. I saw you." At this point, our NOW TV cameraman turned around and showed off the cut on his finger to the other cameramen around him. They all decided to summon the police.

So far, the police said that they arrested two men. A 53-year-old man was unconditionally released later because the 'victim' refused to press charges. A 71-year-old man was still under detention.

- (9UP News) There was a clash between reporters and citizens. This video was taken by our reporter. We offered it to the citizen who was arrested for assault so that he may seek legal advice. The citizen said that we should publish the video. We respect his opinion.

In the video, the NOW TV cameraman in the OLD NAVY American flag white t-shirt used his left hand to brush aside the other reporter who wore glasses and a blue-white checkered short-sleeved shirt in order to film the demonstrators. The citizen rushed at this other reporter but accidentally touched the left hand of the NOW TV cameraman. When you have the video, you have the truth. The court can decide ...

- I wonder if NOW TV will be willing to air the video as taken by their fatso cameraman while he was screaming "Fuck your mother!"?

- Look at the videos taken by the others. The fatso NOW TV cameraman shut down his camera before he engaged in unprofessional conduct. Hong Kong reporters are not stupid!

- 25 pan-democratic Legislative Councilors have issued the strongest condemnation and expressed extreme anger at the thugs who assaulted the news reporters and interfered with freedom of press.

- But did they ever condemn the Mong Kok rioters?

- The guy on the left in the baseball cap is Lee Ching-hei (Civic Passion). He is an accredited reporter for Passion Times and this is his customary work clothes (see #521 for Lee Ching-hei gathering news at Hong Kong Copyright Alliance meeting). In this case, he must also be gathering news in his unique manner. Of course, the metal pipe in his hand is for defensive purpose only ...  you know, the police can attack innocent citizens at any time ...

- It was reported that the 53-year-old arrestee named Ko was released unconditionally because the "victim" refused to press charges. I place my bet on the "victim" being the fatso NOW TV cameraman. He has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose should there be a court trial and he is forced to produce the video and testify on the witness stand. As it stands, this is bad enough because this video has been viewed millions of times already.

- At issue is whether the 71-year-old man named Tong will press counter-charges against the NOW TV cameraman and the Cable TV cameraman for assault by thrusting their cameras into his face while screaming obscenities at him.

- (The Stand News) Last night at 1030pm, a 71-year-old man named Lau reported to the police that an obese man 30 to 40 years old rammed a camera into his chest near the taxi stand at the Hong Kong International Airport. The attacker wore a blue/black-checkered shirt. Lau said that he felt uncomfortable in his chest and he was sent to the Lantau Island Hospital for treatment. In the video, that alleged attacker would be the Cable TV cameraman.

- (Ta Kung Pao) January 9, 2017. According to a demonstrator, their anger exploded after three incidents:

(1) When Nathan Law and Joshua Wong left Hong Kong, they posted photos of twenty or so patriotic demonstrators and made fun of them on Facebook as being paid professional demonstrators;

(2) in Taiwan, pro-Taiwan independence activist Freddy Lim said that the Hong Kong demonstrators were kids compared to the 200 gangsters demonstrating in Taiwan;

(3) a Yellow Ribbon news reporter flashed the middle finger at the demonstrators and used obscene curses to provoke them.

- (EJ Insight) January 10, 2017. The “organized” protest against Nathan Law was led by the Association for the Workers of Hong Kong Travel Industry Ltd. chairman Ip Chi-wai, and backed by members from the travel industry and political organizations that support Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, according to Apple Daily. Some protestors were heard yelling “for Patriotism” when attempting to assault Law. Ip, who is critical of Nathan Law, has however denied that the protesters were members of his organization.

- Well, why is this cause for concern? Let me rewrite the above paragraph for you:

The “organized” protest against Chief Executive CY Leung was led by the League of Social Democrats chairman Leung Kwok-hung, and backed by members from the pan-democratic political parties that oppose CY Leung, according to Apple Daily. Some protestors were heard yelling “for Democracy” when attempting to assault the Chief Executive. Leung Kwok-hung, who is critical of CY Leung, has however denied that those protesters were members of his organization.

This happens all the time, but nobody blinks. Why blink now?

- (Kinliu) In the Mong Kok riot, ruthless rioters threw bricks and assaulted the police. Even as society condemned the violence, the so-called pro-democracy fighters jumped out to defend the rioters. They said that this was a case of the authorities forcing the people to resist. They said that if the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department inspectors did not evict unlicensed vendors on New Year's Day, there would not be an outbreak of popular anger. They demanded that the rioters not be called rioters. Instead, the authorities should reflect on why the citizens are upset at them and the police should reflect on the result of their unjustified use of force. Everything was the fault of the government, and the rioters who threw bricks are the justice warriors/heroes.

Flash forward to now at the airport. Three pro-self-determination legislators plus Joshua Wong traveled to Taiwan to attend the conference hosted by the New People Power Party. Many people believed that this was a link-up between the Hong Kong and Taiwan independence movements.

Based upon the nature of the incident, the attackers of Nathan Law are indeed violent thugs, and we should be deploring such violence. But the problem is that if this incident is put next to the Mong Kok riot, then it can be seen in a different light. This was a case of the pro-independence advocates forcing the people to resist. If the pro-independence advocates had not gone to Taiwan to link up with their counterparts there, there would not be an outbreak of popular anger. These thugs should not be called thugs. Instead, the three legislators and Joshua Wong should reflect on why the citizens are upset at them. Everything is their fault, and the thugs who attacked them are the justice warriors/heroes.

Of course, we should deplore all violence. But can we have a standard that is consistent with commonsense? We should not maintain double standards whereby everything that I do is just and righteous, and everything that you do is unjust and wrong.

(Hong Kong Free Press) January 6, 2017.

A prominent localist group said on Thursday that it would “withdraw from all social movements” in the short-term, due to the “increased risks” of participating in street protests.

Civic Passion leader Cheng Chung-tai told Stand News that the risks did not involve police brutality, but the existence of “double-agents.” He claimed that police are still making fresh arrests over the Mong Kok unrest last February “possibly because, while being questioned by police, some people are naming other [participants]”. He added that public opinion at present is not supportive enough of “the resistance [street protesters]”.

Several Civic Passion members were arrested in the months following the Mong Kok clashes, which broke out over the government’s attempt to clear street hawkers in the area. Group member Chan Pak-yeung was the first among all defendants to be convicted, sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment in October. 90 people have been arrested so far in relation to the incident.

As Civic Passion’s sole lawmaker, Cheng added on Thursday that the group will change its strategy to focus on community work. It will be restructured from a “loose political organisation” into a political party, introducing formal membership procedures. Civic Passion will also separate itself from the operations of affiliated media outlet Passion Times, run by the group’s former leader Wong Yeung-tat.

In September, Civic Passion formed an alliance with then-lawmaker Raymond Wong Yuk-man and former Lingnan University professor Chin Wan for its Legislative Council election campaign, fielding a total of five candidates. However, Cheng was the only one elected following a string of disappointing results for the alliance.

While fellow localist lawmakers Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chung-hang were disqualified following a government legal challenge against their oaths of office in October, Cheng took his oath without protest. He explained that modifying the oath “would not be an effective means of resistance.”

Internet comments:

- At this juncture in time, the most common description of the political spectrum in Hong Kong is:

Pro-establishment camp (including DAB (Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong), FTU (Federation of Trade Unions), NPP (New People's Party) and others)

Non-establishment camp
    - Traditional pan-democrats (including Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party, ADPL)
    - Radical pan-democrats (including League of Social Democrats, People Power, etc)
    - Localists (including Hong Kong Indigenous, Civic Passion, etc).

The best show in town last year was the back-stabbing within the non-establishment camp. This is just the latest episode in the long-running hit job.

Here is an excerpt from this episode:


League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng Man-yuen:
Two months ago in the anti-Interpretation demonstration, I was manhandled by the the police. My hipbone and knee have hurt so much that I had to go for acupuncture today.
After visiting the doctor, I checked the news and read that Civic Passion's Legislator Cheng Chung-tai has followed up with his earlier "the permanent extension of the Basic Law is not defunct" with an announcement today on the complete withdrawal from social activism. He is now advocating the 4 NO's: "No valor, no force, no resistance, no struggle." His stance has changed very quickly, and he is much more moderate than the pan-democrats.
At this instant, I feel that the blood on my back is very hot.
#Civic Passion should apologize to Hong Kong Indigenous


Poki Chan:
I dare say that all those who really cast a vote for Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence will appreciate Cheng Chung-tai's decision. Fuck your mother! CP/PPI/HKR were attacked by fellow travelers during the election period and fought a tragic battle in order to deal with the 2047 end date. But the people of Hong Kong are dumb enough to choose to trust the loud-talking Youngspiration/Chan Chak-to instead. Do the people of Hong Kong deserve our help? When you see how fucking stupid the people of Hong Kong are, all smart people who don't want to become political hacks should directly withdraw from social activism working for those fools. Mr. Avery Ng appears to be completely oblivious about what has happened in Hong Kong. There is nothing to debate here, inasmuch as humans don't have to debate cockroaches.
Poki Chan:
Civic Passion should apologize to Hong Kong Indigenous? He must be fucking crazy! At this point, I don't even know if Hong Kong Indigenous still exists. So how the fuck can an apology be made? Has your League of Social Democrats apologized to Civic Passion and Raymond Wong yet? When the League of Social Democrats chairman is so fucking irrational and even calls himself the Great General, he should go home and sleep it off!

- The #Civic Passion Should Apologize to Hong Kong Indigenous tag refers to this piece of history:
Previously, Edward Leung (Hong Kong Indigenous) re-surfaced to say that he really didn't mean that he had no red line when it comes to resistance. He disclosed that his personal red line was that he does not want to end up in jail himself. However, he could not disclose that fact while others are throwing bricks at the police and getting arrested and charged. Civic Passion member Chan Pak-yeung was sentenced to nine months in jail for his participation in the Mong Kok riot started by Hong Kong Indigenous. Civic Passion criticized Edward Leung and Hong Kong Indigenous fiercely. With today's declaration of 4 NO's by Cheng Chung-tai (Civic Passion), Avery Ng said that Civic Passion is no different than Civic Passion and therefore should apologize!

- The Localists' rally cry is 「勇武抗爭」(Valiant Resistance). Given the latest developments, Hong Kong Indigenous and Civic Passion have declared that the new line is 「不勇不武不抗不爭」(No valor, no force, no resistance, no struggle).

- The relationship between the Valiant Resisters and the Police has always been this way. They bark at each other across the gate for show but otherwise won't make physical contact. But when the gate moves away and physical contact is imminently possible, the Valiant Resisters run away.

- Famous sayings of Civic Passion chairman Cheng Chung-tai:

Before being elected in rebuttal to Wong Ho-ming (League of Social Democrats): I advocate violent resistance
After being elected: I will withdraw from social activism and actively help grandpas and grandmas to measure their blood pressures

(The Stand News) January 2, 2017.

Today, Ming Pao reported that the latest Immigration Department statistics show that there were 182 cases of declaration of change of nationality received. According to the Immigration Department website, there were 134 cases of declaration of change of nationality, of which 109 cases were applications for renunciation of Chinese nationality. In 2013, there were 137 cases of declaration of change of nationality, of which 112 were applications for renunciation of Chinese nationality.

After the British citizen Lee Bo was suspected of having been kidnapped in late 2015, the British Foreign Office Minister Richard Ottaway expressed his concern to Beijing. But Chinese Foreign Minister Wang  Yi responded that Lee Bo was a Chinese citizen under both the Hong Kong Basic Law and the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China. This was clearly an attempt to stop the United Kingdom from engaging the case of Lee Bo.

According to the National Law of the People's Republic of China and the Interpretation by the National People's Congress Standing Committee, all those Hong Kong residents who were born in Hong Kong or mainland China are automatically Chinese nationals and therefore do not enjoy foreign consular services in China (including Hong Kong). Therefore all those Hongkongers who are foreign nationals must apply to renounce their Chinese nationality if they want foreign consular protection.

Internet comments:

- (Hong Kong Immigration Department) Declaration of Change of Nationality.

Under the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China (CNL), Hong Kong residents who are of Chinese descent and born in Chinese territories (including Hong Kong) are regarded as Chinese citizens. They are not entitled to consular protection in the HKSAR and other parts of the People's Republic of China notwithstanding that they hold or have held British Dependent Territories Citizen passports, British National (Overseas) passport, or any other foreign passports.  If such Hong Kong residents holding foreign passports choose to be treated as foreign nationals in the HKSAR, they may make declarations of change of nationality to the HKSAR Immigration Department. Upon approval, they will no longer be regarded as Chinese citizens and can enjoy consular protection from the country of their declared nationality.

- (Hong Kong Immigration Department) Facts and Statistics on Chinese Nationality.

  2014 2015
Declaration of change of nationality cases received 137 134
Application for naturalisation as a Chinese national received 1,458 1,689
Application for renunciation of Chinese nationality received 112 109
Application of restoration of Chinese nationality received 3 5

- The heading on the Stand News report was: 【不做中國人？】港人申請國籍變更大增　去年首十個月高過前年全年三成 ("Don't want to be Chinese national?" The number of Hongkongers applying for change of nationality increased greatly; first ten months of last year was higher by 30% than the entire year before last)

Wow! From the title, you would expect big numbers -- like 100,000 renunciations of Chinese nationality in 2015 rising up by 30% to 130,000 in the first ten months of 2016. But no, the number was 134 in 2015 rising up by 30% to 182 in the first ten months of 2016.

The figure of 182 refers to the declaration of change of nationality cases received. There are two sub-categories:

(1) Persons with dual citizenship renouncing their Chinese nationality;
(2) Persons with dual citizenship renouncing their foreign citizenship.

The figure of 182 for the first 10 months of 2016 was not broken down by the two sub-categories. The number of renunciations of Chinese nationality could be anywhere between 0 and 182.

If the number of renunciations of Chinese nationality was 142 or higher, then they can claim that there was an increase of 30% or more. At this point, they don't know that. So how can they write this headline?

- So this 'news report' quotes a statistic that neither supports nor refutes the thesis of more Hongkongers not wanting to be Chinese nationals anymore. It then goes ahead to attribute to the 30% increase in renunciations of Chinese nationality to the kidnapping of Chinese national Lee Bo into mainland China. What is the basis for this allegation?

Of the 182 dual citizens who wanted to change nationality, how many renounced their Chinese nationality? Of these, how many did Ming Pao/The Stand interviewed? None. So where did the conclusion come from? It must be the proverbial "Pulled it out of their asses".

- Why do they practice Yellow Journalism?

Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.

Because the editor ordered the reporter: "The Causeway Bay Bookstore case is dying off. Write something to keep it alive." And voilà!

- On February 23, 2015, Apple Daily (Taiwan) published a news report titled 暴增6成 港人遷台年逾7千件 創新高(Sharp increase of 60%: More than 7,000 Hongkongers move to reside in Taiwan, setting new record). The explanation was: "After more than 2 months of the Occupy Movement to fight for genuine universal suffrage of Chief Executive, Hong Kong is politically and socially tense. Many Hongkongers want to move away." However, a consultant said that immigration applications take two to three years to process and approve/reject, so the effects won't be apparent until next year or the year after.

According to the National Immigration Agency (Taiwan), for the first 11 months of 2016, a total of 3,849 Hongkongers received permission to stay and 1,001 Hongkongers were granted residency. For the 11-month period in 2015, a total of 6,033 Hongkongers received permission to stay and 810 Hongkongers were granted residency. There is nothing to report here because it does not fit the theme of the ill effects of the Umbrella Revolution forcing Hongkongers to leave in despair. And God forbid that it should reflect badly on the democratically elected President Tsai Ing-wen who has driven Hongkongers away in droves!

- It isn't as if the 182 people have abandoned any hope for Hong Kong and gave up their Chinese nationality in order to live somewhere overseas happily forever afterwards. The whole point is that they are NOT leaving. They want to continue to live in Hong Kong and/or mainland China. But because they think that they are doing something that might cause them to be kidnapped by some mysterious Special Branch of the National Security Agency of Communist China, they felt the need to have foreign consular services for non-Chinese nationals.

- It isn't as if this was 'losing' 182 people, thus causing a population depletion crisis.

(Wikipedia)

Hong Kong current has a quota of 150 people per day for mainlanders to come to Hong Kong for the purpose of family reunion.

This is very important because:

Journalist Ching Cheong alleges that the scheme, whose beneficiaries are at the sole discretion of the PRC government and outside of the vetting procedures of the Hong Kong Immigration Department, is an infiltration mechanism by spies and friends of the regime into Hong Kong; those that are not filled by spies become a graft mechanism for officials. Martin Lee said that the policy is part of the CPC's strategy of long-run "Tibetisation" of Hong Kong, aimed at marginalising Hong Kong people and their core values over time.

In the grand scheme of things, the 182 figure is insignificant. (Home Affairs Department) In the second quarter of 2016, 13,883 One-way Permit Holders entered Hong Kong with a daily average of 152.

- From the same Immigration Department table, 67% more people restored their previously renounced Chinese nationality in 2015 than in 2014! What does that mean? Nothing, really. In 2015 there were 5 cases compared to the 3 cases in 2014.

- What is the advantage of Chinese nationality? For one thing, China will evacuate its own citizens from war zones and disaster areas (Asia Times).

- How about the number of applications for naturalization as a Chinese national? 1,458 in 2014 rising up to 1,689 in 2015. Why do so many foreigners want to become Chinese citizens nowadays? They couldn't all be professional soccer and basketball players, right?

- It is understandable that they have to make things up because not much was happening during the New Year holidays. But there are plenty of things that can be reported. For example, this video took place in the spectator stand at the soccer field at Maple Street, Sham Shui Po district. The man with the mobile phone had spotted a woman sitting in front of him smoking a cigarette. He asked her to stop.

(Man) I am only asking you not to smoke cigarettes.
(Woman standing up) Why are you still talking on and on? I'm going to scream that you are molesting me.
(Man) How am I going to molest you? I haven't touched you at all.
(Woman) I told you to shut up, but you just have to keep talking.
(Man) You and I separated by an entire pillar. How am I going to molest you, sister? I was only asking you not to smoke cigarettes.
(Woman) I told you to shut up, but you just have to keep talking.
(Man) If I didn't tell you, you would still be smoking.
(Woman's companion) Is that enough?
(Man) Enough what?
(Woman's companion) [The cigarette] has been put out.
(Man) If I didn't tell her, she would not have put it out.
(Woman) It's been put out.

But wait, Internet users have identified the couple as being active Yellow Ribbon demonstrators! So this story cannot be reported.

But wait, because there is lack of specific information, so a Yellow Ribbon Facebook has posted the same video as being about active Blue Ribbon demonstrators!

(Oriental Daily) December 2, 2016.

The Civil Human Rights Front announced that they are planning for a demonstration march on New Year's Day. The main demands will be (1) to oppose the government's use of judicial review against the four Legislative Councilors (Nathan Law, Lau Siu-wai, Leung Kwok-hung and Yiu Chung-yim); (2) to demand that Chief Executive CY Leung leave office. The two issues are linked because the judicial review is a political coup plotted by CY Leung over many years to make sure that the pan-democrats lose the majority (and hence the veto power) in the Legislative Council.

(Oriental Daily) December 14, 2016.

The Civil Human Rights Front announced today that they will be holding a New Year's Day demonstration march. The march will begin at 3:00pm from Victoria Park and end at the Chater Road pedestrian mall in Central. The march will be led by the Legislative Councilors. The Civil Human Rights Front has issued invitations to all Legislative Councilors, including the disqualified Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching.

The slogan for the march is "Sovereignty belongs to the people, March on New Year's Day." The themes of the march are (1) oppose the Interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress Standing Committee; (2) oppose the judicial review by the government against the four Legislative Councilors (Nathan Law, Lau Siu-wai, Leung Kwok-hung and Yiu Chung-yim); (3) demand genuine universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election; etc.

Nathan Law, Lau Siu-wai and Leung Kwok-hung called for the civic organizations to unite together to apply peaceful and reasoned pressure on the government. Leung said that the government is an authoritarian regime that is ruthlessly using every means possible to destroy the opposition. Therefore he calls for the citizens to march in the street.

(Oriental Daily) January 1, 2016.

30 minutes before the march was due to begin, there were just over 100 persons present at the scene. 20 minutes before the march was due to begin, the number increased to between 200 and 300 persons.

The demonstration march started off at 3:10pm. The procession was led by four Legislative Councilors Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai, Leung Kwok-hung and Yiu Chung-yim. There were between 700 and 800 marchers. At 4:20pm, the procession was at the Canal Road Flyover with about 1,000 persons. At 6:00pm the end of the procession reached the stopping point. About 300 persons gathered for an assembly. Previously, the Civil Human Rights Front had applied to the police for a no-objection letter for a 50,000-person march. Today the Civil Human Rights Front spokesperson Au Nok-hin said that they have no plans to conduct a head count.

Coming up at the back of the procession was a group calling themselves Hong Kong Pan-Blue Friends. They carried an inverted British Lion-Dragon drag and they demanded an end to one-party rule (because they want the Chinese Communists to share power with the Kuomintang).

Internet comments:

- World record number at an assembly! (Oriental Daily) January 1, 2017. About 6,125 persons gathered today at the AsiaWorld Expo to play the song <Home Sweet Home> with their ukuleles. This is a Guinness world record, breaking the 2015 Tahiti event by 1,333 persons.

- I watched the demonstration march on the Department of Transportation's surveillance camera at Jardine Road near Hennessey Road. Because there weren't a lot of people, it was easy to count. By my count, there were fewer than 900 marchers.

- RTHK quotes Leung Kwok-hung: "I know that many citizens were unable to march for a variety of reasons. Some citizens told him that they will donate money instead." Leung hopes that citizens will continue to use various means to oppose the government's use of the judicial review to oppress the four Legislative Councilors.

- Ming Pao quotes Nathan Law: "Many citizens are in a holiday mood after CY Leung announced that he won't seek re-election. Besides, the New Year's Day march always have fewer people than June 4th and July 1st."

- The government pulled out all stops to suppress turnout. Firstly, they organized a New Year's Eve midnight fireworks show in Victoria Harbor, with more than 300,000 viewers. These people got home late and could not get out of bed in time. Secondly, the Hong Kong Jockey Club (which had donated $3.5 billion to build the Palace Museum in West Kowloon without public consultation) held horse races in Sha Tin, with 86,606 in attendance at the track, $1.577 billion in bets and countless others at Off Track Betting locations. These are the usual dirty tricks that CY Leung uses against freedom/democracy/human rights/justice/rule-of-law/universal suffrage all the time.

- TVB quotes Civil Human Rights Front spokesperson Au Nok-hin: "One of the demands is to urge the government to rescind the judicial review against the four Legislative Councilors. The Civil Human Rights Front will consider Chief Executive candidates state their positions on this issue." At the same time, the Civil Human Rights Front also said that they are not interfering with a court case that has been scheduled to be heard. Huh?

- (Oriental Daily) Counter-demonstrators throw joss money at Yau Wai-ching, yell at Leung Kwok-hung to give up his public housing apartment for some needy person; tell the pro-independence marchers "Go back to England! Don't ever come back!"

- The Stand News quotes Civil Human Rights Front spokesperson Au Nok-hin at 3:14pm: "The Front applied to the police for 50,000 marchers. So far there are only about 3,000 at the scene." And here is the photo of the 3,000 people:

- Wait, don't let your eyes lie to you! The Civil Human Rights Front said that there are 9,150 persons in that photo! (RTHK) The Civil Human Rights Front announced that 9,150 persons took part in the New Year's Day march. Convener Au Nok-hin apologized to the public for the low turnout. He said that he will bear all responsibility and he urges citizens not to think that marching is useless. Why were there so few people? Au said that many citizens think that all the problems will be solved once CY Leung is gone. Au said that the Civil Human Rights Front has a counting station in Wanchai. However, Au observed that some citizens joined in at points past the counting station, so that their counters cannot count up all the marchers.

- Here are the historical numbers as claimed by the organizers:

2004: 100,000 (Civil Human Rights Front)
2006: 50 (April 5th Movement)
2008: 50 (League of Social Democrats)
2009: 100 (League of Social Democrats)
2010: 30,000 (Civil Human Rights Front)
2013: 130,000 (Civil Human Rights Front)
2014: 30,000 (Civil Human Rights Front)
2015: 13,000 (Civil Human Rights Front)
2016: 4,000 (2016 New Years Day Demonstration March Alliance)
2017: 9,150 (Civil Human Rights Front)

In 2016, the police said that 2,700 persons started out from Victoria Park and the peak crowd size was 4,800.

- Numbers are important, not so much the number of demonstrators but the amounts that are being raised at the various street booths run by various groups along the march route. A number of groups (such as the Democratic Party) have promised to forward their intakes to the Justice Defence Fund. So there are a number of possible scenarios from this other numbers game:

(1) The reported amount in donations is small, and this reflects that the citizens think that the four Legislative Councilors messed up with their oaths of office and therefore are fully responsible for their own actions. Furthermore, these Legislative Councilors earn $95,180 per month in salary and they should be able to take care of their own legal bills.

(2) The reported amount in donations is small, but observers could see that citizens were putting in wads and wads of money into the money chests. This means that the organizations are withholding most of the donations for themselves and forwarding a small fraction to the Justice Defence Fund.

(3) The reported amount in donations is huge, and this reflects that the citizens believe that they must defend the four Legislative Councilors and hence stop the government's plot to seize veto power in the Legislative Council.

(4) The reported amounts in donations is huge, but observers could not see many citizens putting money into the money chests. This means that the money is coming from super-funders who don't want to be identified.


It does not matter if you can't march
The most important thing is to donate money.

- (Oriental Daily) January 1, 2017. Here are the all-important numbers:

The Justice Defence Fund announced that they have raised donations of more than $2 million, after excluding $140,500 in joss money. Of this amount, $1.42 million were raised by various political organizations (not including the Civil Human Rights Front itself). Since the Fund had already raised more than $410,000 as of December 30, 2016, the total so far is $1,830,000. Once Civil Human Rights Front comes forth with their contribution, the total is expected to go past $2 million.

Individually, the Democratic Party said that their two booths raised $63,803.50. Lau Siu-lai said that she raised more than $140,000. Leung Kwok-hung said that his group raised more than $400,000. Demosisto said that they raised more than $200,000.

- (HKG Pao) January 6, 2017. The Civil Human Rights Front said that they raised more than $180,000. After deducting expenses, they will be handing about $75,000 to the Justice Defence Fund. At this time, the Fund has more than $2.045 million already.

- In Hong Kong, joss money comes in very large denominations (usually, in $100 million bills). So who could there be as few as only $145,000 in joss money? The organizers explained that those ghost donors were cheap and bought mainland joss money which come in much smaller denominations. Cheap? It costs more to buy mainland Chinese joss money in Hong Kong!

- (EJ Insight) On November 21, 2016. China Liaison Office director Zhang Xiaoping auctioned off a piece of calligraphy for $18.8 million at a fundraiser for the pro-establishment DAB party.

- Here is a contra-street booth, with the banners: "I want to accept Dark Gold (=secret, possibly illegal, donations)."

- Apparently Yau Wai-ching was preoccupied with other issues. (Apple Daily) The popular Japanese television drama <Running Away is Shameful but Useful> features a song/dance routine. Yau Wai-ching and Kwong Po-yin performed this routine for Kwong's Whampao District Council Facebook.

- Why would Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching show up at the New Year's Day march? The Civil Human Rights Front said that the DQ2 duo was invited. However, the donations raised are earmarked for the DQ4 Legislative Councilors, with nothing for the DQ2. This is clearly a slap in the face, not in the least because the whole trouble was started by the DQ2.

- (Oriental Daily) Yau Wai-ching came down to Victoria Park to address the press. She said that the crowdfunding for the DQ2 has raised $500,000 so far. However, $480,000 was paid to their lawyers already. At this point, they are going to re-start the crowdfunding in order to raise $1,600,000 by January 9 in order to pay the deposit for their case with the Court of Final Appeal. She said that they have written to the Legislative Council to explain that they needed the money for the appeal and therefore they cannot repay the Legislative Council for their salaries and operating funds.

- <Running Away From Your Debts Is Shameful But Useful>?

- This is the modern myth of Sisyphus. Leung/Yau is always crowdfunding towards a particular goal. When they approach that goal, the RESET button gets hit and we have to start all over again. So we have the endless (as well as pointless) task of giving more money to them more frequently.

- (Facebook video) The Occupy Central trio of Chan Kin-man, Chu Yiu-ming and Benny Tai were present. They needed the police to form a cordon to protect them from a bunch of "Fuck your mother"-yelling uncles.

- (Facebook video) (Facebook video) Labour Party vice-chairman Alex Kwok Siu-kit was cursed out by a bunch of "Fuck your mother"-yelling uncles and an auntie. Previously, Hong Kong and Kowloon Lifeguards' Union vice-president Kwok took one year off for disability due to a work-related injury and spent that time as the leader of the Occupy Central team of marshals.

(SCMP) December 31, 2016.

Former lawmakers Frederick Fung Kin-kee was stopped by immigration officers on arrival in Macau. He was informed that he “constitutes a threat to [Macau’s] internal security and stability”.

“I have committed no criminal offence. I don’t know how I can be a threat,” Fung, of the Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood, said. He had meant to meet friends there. “Even the mainland is now ready to issue home-return permits to pan-democrats to travel or conduct business. Why is Macau even stricter with Hongkongers than the mainland?”

On November 30, the Hong Kong government confirmed that Beijing would now accept applications from pan-democrats for home-return permits, which are required of permanent Hong Kong ID card holders of Chinese descent to enter the mainland. At least a dozen pan-democrats have seen their travel documents expire with no hope of renewal because of their activism since the Tiananmen crackdown in 1989.

The central government’s olive branch to the camp was reconfirmed last week by Wang Guangya, director of the State Council’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, who told the pro-Beijing Bauhina Magazine in an interview that opposition politicians would be free to travel across the border, visit relatives and conduct exchanges on the mainland as long as they obeyed local laws.

Hong Kong residents do not need home-return permits to go to Macau – their identity cards are in many cases enough.

Fung found Macau’s refusal to let him in “strange” in view of the change in Beijing’s policy. “Either Beijing’s offer is false, or Macau is over-zealous in banning dissidents,” he said. He said he would urge the Hong Kong government to liaise with its Macau counterpart to find out if it had a “blacklist” of pro-democracy activists.

The Hong Kong Security Bureau said it would respect decisions made by immigration authorities in other jurisdictions and it would not intervene.

Internet comments:

 - (SCMP) December 31, 2016. Two weeks ago, Richard Tsoi Yiu-cheung, vice-chairman of the Hong Kong ­Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, which marks the 1989 crackdown every year, became the first barred activist to set foot on mainland soil after the lifting of the decades-old travel ban. Tsoi made the trip to Guangzhou as a “test” and stayed there for one night.

- So what did Tso do once he got to Guangzhou? He went to the Southern Media Group building, pulled of his shirt to reveal a t-shirt with the words: "Refuse to forget" and let the Apple Daily reporter take a picture. If that was the purpose of the trip, then the Patriotic Democratic Movements of China will never make any progress.

- (SCMP) February 4, 2009. Frederick Fung Kin-kee, Kowloon West lawmaker for the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood, was detained at the city's ferry pier on Saturday and later told to take the next ferry back to Hong Kong. 'Macau is too sensitive. I have never been rejected entry to any cities,' he said, adding that he had returned from a trip to Harbin in December. He sought help from Stephen Lam Sui-lung, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, but was told that the Hong Kong government had no jurisdiction over other governments. A former chairman of the association, Mr Fung was told that his name had 'appeared on a computer' and was denied entry under Macau's internal security laws. The lawmaker, who was with a friend from Shanghai, was intending to meet the association's former staff on Saturday. His friend was allowed entry. Macau authorities yesterday did not reply to questions raised on the denial of entry to Hong Kong lawmakers.

- Every government in the world has its own black list, which is not answerable to any other government or organization. As in 2009, there won't be an answer from the Macau government about what happened.

- The Macau Special Administrative Region has its own Basic Law. Article 2 says: "The National People's Congress authorises the Macao Special Administrative Region to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, in accordance with the provisions of this Law." This means that neither the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region nor even the Central Government should interfere with the high degree of autonomy in the Macau SAR.

- If you think that the Central Government's One Country can override Macau in the two systems, then surely the Central Government can do the same in Hong Kong. So the pan-democrats are not going to force the Central Government to take action.

- So why is this a story now? (Hong Kong Free Press) December 20, 2016.

Pro-democracy former lawmaker Frederick Fung Kin-kee has said that he is actively considering joining the upcoming by-election in the Kowloon West area. But his party, the Association for Democracy and People’s Livelihood (ADPL), has clarified it has made no decision as to whether to field candidates.

The by-election triggered by the disqualification of localist politician Yau Wai-ching will be held in four to six months. Fung, a veteran in the area, said after a Commercial Radio programme on Monday that the ADPL will be electing its new leaders at the end of this month and its central committee has yet to discuss the by-election.

“But I think, as a party, which has strengths in the Kowloon West constituency where it has completed 30 years of work, I cannot see why the ADPL should not actively consider [running],” he said.

Fung, 63, said the party has an internal selection mechanism and will commission popularity polls conducted by universities for picking candidates. “I am actively considering [running],” he said, adding that he has expressed his views to his party colleagues.

So Frederick Fung needs to stay in the limelight and not be forgotten by the voters. He would have been disappointed if Macau allowed him to enter freely.

- Actually, on the Hong Kong Internet, the interest is less about Frederick Fung than about the man in the black mask standing next to him to meet the press. Who Was That Masked Man?

- Why was the young man standing next to him wearing a black mask? Something is very fishy/sinister here. We must mobilize the the Internet users to ferret out his identity and purpose!

- Because Frederick Fung is running in the Kowloon West by-election and he does not want to be assaulted by a pro-China newspaper reporter, he has hired a bodyguard on a 24/7 basis.

- There are too many mainland tourists hauling suitcases on the Turbojet ferries. So this man is there to assist 64-year-old Frederick Fung by kicking away any suitcase that comes in the proximity of Fung.

- When a Hongkonger run out of money to gamble in Macau, there is always a friendly loan shark  on the casino floor willing to make a short-term loan to him. After losing that money as well, the loan shark is going to demand re-payment with a hefty interest. Typically, the loan shark takes over the Hongkonger's ID and escorts him back to Hong Kong to get the money one way or the other (see case studies). The man in the black mask looks exactly like an enforcer for the loan shark operation. He cannot afford to be identified because it is a crime (under CAP 163 Money Lenders Ordinance S 24) in Hong Kong to lend money at an effective rate of interest which exceeds 60% per annum.

- The masked man is Frederick Fung's son. Fung traveled with his family to meet with friends. Once Fung was turned back to Hong Kong, his son came back with him. Why was the son wearing a black mask, in the manner of Lone Ranger? No, he was not robbing a Chow Sang Sang or Chow Tai Fook. Rather, it is well known that none of the children of the pan-democratic supporters of Occupy Central participated in any of the disobedience/resistance, and that is why they needed to cover up their faces to avoid harassment. Outsiders have no idea how much social pressure the families of the pan-democratic leaders of Occupy Central have to endure!

- That's right -- the pan-democrats tell the children of other people to charge at the police while they forbid their own children to have any part of it.

- Legislative Councilor Chi Chuen Ray Chan's Facebook, January 30, 2017.

Brother, I went over to Macau to visit. How am I going to be "a threat to internal security in Macau"? When I returned to the ferry, they even held my Hong Kong ID. They just gave it back to me.

(The Standard) December 30, 2016.

Three Hong Kong women were arrested in Taiwan after nicking high-end seafood products to enjoy their free takeaway in the restaurant's toilet on Christmas Eve. The deluxe banquet, with abalone, raw oysters and spot prawns on the menu, was meant to cost NT$4,514 (HK$1,084).

The trio somehow managed to steal the seafood, hide it under their clothes and head to the toilet at Addiction Aquatic Development, a popular seafood restaurant in Taipei. However, they were exposed by a cleaner, who found food packaging in the bin.

Upon questioning, a few unfinished oysters were found on Hong Kong woman Tsui, aged 25. Her two friends are surnamed Chong, 22, and Liu, 22.

After the restaurant staff did some adding up, they discovered the trio ate six big abalone, with the most pricey one costing TW$720 and the others costing around TW$500. They also had three spot prawns, with a price tag of TW$120 each, and eight oysters, costing TW$648 in total.

Faced with a bill of more than TW$4,514, the three claimed they did not have any money with them, and they were taken to the police. They were barred from leaving the country.

In a court hearing yesterday, the trio admitted theft and finally settled their HK$1,084 bill after reconciliation. Then they were released.

The court heard that the trio went to the restaurant on Christmas Eve, first ordering some food in the sushi bar. They then sneaked into the seafood bar to steal the seafood while the place was packed with diners.

Popular among both locals and foreigners, Addiction Aquatic Development is a fish market best known for serving fresh seafood at a competitive price.

It was not the first time Hongkongers have embarrassed themselves in Taiwan. Two Hong Kong women were arrested in March 2014 for trashing an apartment they were renting.

(SCMP) December 30, 2016. Shellfish endeavour lands hungry Hong Kong trio in court after stealing seafood to eat in bathroom. By Sarah Zheng. December 30, 2016.

Three Hongkongers on holiday in Taiwan have pleaded guilty to stealing high-grade seafood from a local seafood hot spot on Christmas Eve, and eating it in a nearby bathroom.

The three women were caught nabbing seafood worth NT$4,514 (HK$1,080) at Addiction Aquatic Development, a Japanese market-style space with seafood restaurants and food kiosks, and eating it in the bathroom, according to Taiwan media.

The trio admitted their guilt in court on Thursday and compensated the shop owner in full, allowing them to leave the neighbouring island to return to Hong Kong, it said.

On the night before Christmas, the three women –Tsui Pui-yan, 25, Liu Ka-wan, 21, and Chong Nga-man, 22 – had initially ordered some food at the market space, but then went to the seafood buffet area to snag fresh freebies.

In total, they hid six abalones, eight oysters, and three peony shrimp under their clothing to enjoy in the store’s bathroom stall. The largest of the stolen abalone, a type of shellfish with a colourful shell, was worth NT$720, while the remaining ones averaged NT$500. Each peony shrimp – known for their bright red colour – was worth NT$120, and the eight oysters cost NT$649.

But bathroom cleaner found suspicious empty containers and price tags discarded in the bathroom, which they reported to the store’s employees.

The three women were stopped at the exit, and one was found to still be carrying uneaten oysters. Caught red-handed, the three continuously used both Mandarin and Cantonese to say they did not have enough money to pay for what they had stolen and expressed embarrassment, according to an Apple Daily news report. The women were brought to the police station and initially restricted from leaving Taiwan until the case was resolved.

Addiction Aquatic Development said they have not had many thefts in recent years, and that as long as the perpetrators admitted their guilt, the cases can be peacefully settled.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily with video). As seen in the video, the three women were intercepted by restaurant workers. The woman named Tsui sneaked out during the confusion. Chong and Liu were detained and interrogated. Later another restaurant worker brought Tsui back. Tsui was asked to hand over the seafood that were allegedly stolen.

- This wouldn't be a big story but the media reporting on the names of the three individuals.

The Standard listed them as "Tsui, aged 25; Chong, aged 22; Liu, aged 22." Well, tens of thousands of people have those last names in Hong Kong.

SCMP listed them as "Tsui Pui-yan, 25; Liu Ka-wan, 21; Chong Nga-man, 22." But unless you are acquainted with them, it does not mean a thing.

However, SCMP has a note:

Note: An earlier version of this story used a Putonghua transliteration of the three women’s names. The story has been updated with the correct Cantonese transliteration.

That meant the report went out at first with a Putonghua transliteration of the three women's names. This was immediately triumphantly publicized at the "Stop the Communist Party from colonizing Hong Kong" Facebook with the comment: "So those three so-called Hong Kong women who stole abalones in Taiwan are mainlanders! The transliteration of their names are in Putonghua! Once again, the people of Hong Kong are being maligned! As soon as mainlanders get Hong Kong identity cards, they go outside and cause trouble, thus ruining the reputation of Hong Kong!"

This led to the usual comments:

- This is exactly what I expected to be the case. Every time that a so-called Hongkonger does something shameful, it turns out that this was a Mainland Locust. When will people realize the truth that Hongkongers will never ever do anything such thing to let Hong Kong down! We are genetically superior to the Mongoloids from the north, and this is impossible.
- That is why we should not let any mainlander immigrate to Hong Kong because it will contaminate our genetic pool.
- Hong Kong people are morally and ethically superior to mainlanders. It is a difference of immutable national characters.
- Once again Chee-na cunts are causing trouble.
- Kong girls would never stoop so low as to eat abalone over a squat toilet.
- Chong Nga-man? No matter how you spell it (Zhuang Yawen in Putonghua or Chong Nga-man in Cantonese), this is still a name that only a mainlander would give to his daughter. [Counter: Yes, just like the Hong Kong singer Chiang Nga-man]
- Actually we should not let any mainlander visit Hong Kong for any reason at all. They only come here to defecate/urinate in public, eat without paying, work as hired beggars in Mong Kok/Causeway Bay, work as hired prostitutes/pickpockets, shoplift, kidnap for ransom, commit burglary, etc.

- Here is another photo of a women defecating/urinating near the Stanley Market bus station at noontime on March 4, 2017. These mainlanders have no sense of decency.

(Eh, with due respect, this is a white woman of European descent ...)
(But this white woman could have been born on mainland China and grew up this way. You have no proof otherwise.)

So this was an unintentional action that was misunderstood by certain people, intentionally or unintentionally. But that doesn't relieve the pressure on the SCMP reporter Sarah Zheng:


@abeleung: Right now many of the SCMP reporters are from China (they all use Putonghua transliteration). Her name is Sarah Zheng, so it would not be surprising that she doesn't know how to use Hong Kong-style Cantonese transliteration.


Quote: "Clearly, the mainlander SCMP reporter made her own transliteration. She has now been given the political mission to make the correction." Muahahahaha!"

- South China Morning Post was acquired by Alibaba. So it was expected that they would alter their report to hurt those Internet users who have identified the three women as mainlanders.

- Well, Sarah Zheng's lazy short-cut was the cause of a chain reaction of multiple automobile collisions on the Internet highway. Of course, those who chose to believe that the three women were mainlanders have only themselves to blame. Let me remind everybody of the standard warning about Internet stories: Do not follow the preceding car too closely, or else you can end up in a mass pile-up.


The Hong Kong Internet Traffic Report:
At 3pm, there was a serious multiple-vehicle pile-up in Hong Kong.
At first , someone cited the South China Morning Post report, and others shared the information that the three Kong girls who stole the abalones were actually mainlanders.
However, the reporter whose mother is from Taiwan said: "I used the wrong transliteration" and changed the names of the Kong girls back to their Cantonese transliteration.
Immediately, there was a chain reaction of multiple vehicle collisions. A large amount of glass shards from broken hearts was left at the scene.


... The solution to this case depends on locating the places of birth of these three women.
......Right now even if her name is in Cantonese transliteration, she can still have changed her name after obtaining Hong Kong citizenship.
......We must locate the hospital where she was born
......Better yet, we must find out where her parents were born

@wildwong: Chances are that your brain will get damaged if you frequent HK Golden Forum/Localists/Facebook too often.

- Take a look at these three so-called Hong Kong women:


Their looks are so fake that they are clearly mainland Chinese who got cosmetic surgery done in South Korea.

- The news report on these three women indicate that they are in their 20's. This meant that they entered school after the 1997 handover. By then, the education system had already been wrecked by the Hong Kong Communist government. Therefore the three women cannot be considered genuine Hongkongers. So we have nothing to worry about because they are completely different from us.

- Excuse me, I am getting confused with the plot line. Are you saying that anyone who began schooling after 1997 can never become a genuine Hongkonger? If so, the race of Hongkongers is doomed for extinction after 100 years of solitude. Note that people in their 20's such as Edward Leung, Yau Wai-ching, Ray Wong, Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, etc are not genuine Hongkongers by your definition.

- And among those who had schooling before 1997, only those who attended school in Hong Kong are genuine Hongkongers. This means people such as CY Leung, Carrie Lam, John Tsang and leftists such as Jasper Tsang Yok-sing and his brother Tsang Tak-sing?

- This Shithouse Abalone story was an attempt to portray Localists as beasts who lash out wantonly at so-called mainland locusts. This is not going to work. In February this year, all Localists were aware that Edward Leung Tin-kei is a mainland locust born in the Wuhan City, Hubei province, China. Nevertheless, they all came out to join the Fishball Revolution and achieved a great victory in injuring 99 Hong Kong police officers. That Edward Leung Tin-kei would betray the Localist cause later on is another story.

- Wan Chin's Facebook

In my view, it was a good thing for the Kong girls to steal the abalones in Taiwan. It was enjoyable! You probably don't know how to lead a romantic life. When young people make minor mistakes and create some mischief, it does not matter. Many people are trying to explain this by saying that they must be new immigrants. This is not necessary. When you are intoxicated and you steal some food to gouge on (as opposed to re-selling it), it is no big deal. But what a feeling!

It is not a normal society if there are no thieves, no prostitutes and no fighting in the streets. After 1997, the people of Hong Kong even think that it is wrong to commit crimes, to lose face, to quarrel and to fight. But I think that we haven't lost enough face and we haven't commit enough crimes. The banks should be robbed with AK47's and RPG's. That would be the real Hong Kong. The Song Dynasty represented the acme of Chinese culture. During the Song Dynasty, there were the Water Margin bandits as well as the corrupt officials Cai Jing and Tong Guan. It was an empire of the grand emotions.

- Local Studio

I have seen everybody watched the show, got taken in by the multiple-vehicle pile-up and issued disavowals.
It was no big deal, right?
These were Hongkongers. So how much loss of face and embarrassment did they cause?
Hong Kong has 2 to 3 million young wastrels, middle-aged wastrels, old-aged wastrels and pro-Communist dickheads. Should that be embarrassing enough?
Is anything more embarrassing than having CY Leung as Chief Executive?
Is anything more embarrassing than having Communist China as our sovereign?
Is anything more embarrassing than having my passport carry a PRC emblem?
I immediately felt that the existence of these three pieces of trash was unavoidably trivial.
There is absolutely nothing special about them.

- ... and therefore we should all unavoidably ignore the 5,000+ words that you previously wrote about the moral turpitude of mainlanders as exhibited by those three female mainlanders.

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin.

On Christmas Eve, three young Hong Kong women stole six abalones, eight oysters and three prawns at the Addiction Aquatic Development in Taipei. They took the food into the women's restroom and ate it there. They were apprehended. This became the biggest joke at the end of the year.

This was a minor incident. But it caused a battle between China and Hong Kong on the Internet discussion forums. The three Kong girls who ate unpaid seafood over the toilet were declared by Yellow Umbrella Internet users to be new mainland immigrants with complete certainty, because Hong Kong-born citizens will never do something like this. They also said that the photos posted by these young women showed that they used make-up and posed just as mainlanders would ...

The Yellow Ribbon logic followed the standard formula: Hong Kong people never do bad things; if they did, they must be new immigrants from mainland China.

I am not interested in whether these three Kong girls were born in Hong Kong or just arrived from mainland China. The Taiwan news reports said that the women were Hongkongers who carry the HKSAR passports. In like manner, we treat mainland-born people such as Edward Leung, Billy Fung, Nathan Law and even Leung Kwok-hung as Hongkongers.

... If the people of Hong Kong are so superior, then are the mainlanders so inferior? A few days ago I was in China. It visited the newly developed trade zone of Nansha in Guangdong province. This city is in the midst of rapid construction. I looked around and I could not see any taxis. I asked passersby how to find a taxi. Everybody said that it is very simple: just call the the hotline for taxi service and a taxi will come! When I tried to buy something, I saw that everybody else just took out their phones and use Alibaba to pay for their goods. I was the country hick who still had to count the change to make payment.

When I asked for directions or got on the bus, the people looked mean and nasty. But as soon as they spoke, they turned out to be kind and gentle. The bus driver saw me going off in the wrong direction. So he stopped the bus, opened the door, called me back, showed me the right direction and then he drove off.

In a developing city, the quality of people is already the same as us. When this city finally rises, how far will they leave us behind?

Hong Kong has only 7 million people compared to the 1.4 billion in mainland China. It is surely a lot easier to find flaws with mainland China. A mainland friend told me: "Although we have risen economically, we still have many inadequacies. We cannot convince the people of Hong Kong to do it our way ... we can only hope that our nation will continue to become strong, such that one day the people of Hong Kong will realize that we are doing the right thing and hence join us."

I was impressed. They think differently nowadays. They have no intention of using force; they are trying to improve themselves. Meanwhile, we are standing pat and just laughing at them.

- On one hand, there is something called American exceptionalism which makes America superior over all other nations. On the other hand, there is something now known as Hong Kong perfectionism. Everything that Hongkongers do is perfect; whenever something done by a Hongkonger is imperfect, then this must not be a genuine Hongkonger.

The case of the three young women who stole seafood to eat in the shithouse is a case in point. Another case is the first baby born in Hong Kong in the year 2017. The press reported that the father's name is "神" (Shen, which means God). Because this is such a rare family name, some Hong Kong Internet users concluded that this family must be from the mainland. Immediately they revived the entire history of mainlanders coming to Hong Kong to deliver babies in order to gain residency and steal welfare money from the people of Hong Kong. But this also wounded up being a traffic pile-up with multiple car collisions when the Shen family turned out to be authentic Hongkongers.

In these and other cases, what we see are the fragile glass hearts of these Hongkongers. They are just as fragile as the mainlanders whom they laugh about. How much longer can anger and fear serve them? What happened to this generation? How much responsibility does the preceding generation bear?

(SCMP) December 26, 2016.

The plan to build a HK$3.5 billion Hong Kong version of Beijing’s Palace Museum in West Kowloon Cultural District was only made known to the district authority’s board during a meeting about a month ago, a member has revealed.

Chris Ip Ngo-tung, a member of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority board, also said preparations had begun for the Hong Kong Palace Museum when members were first briefed about the plan during the meeting in November.

On Friday, the government announced it would build a 10,000 sq m museum housing a permanent display of relics provided by the Palace Museum on a long-term and regular basis to mark the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule.

But critics slammed the government for not seeking public consultation for the project and raised questions whether its decision in September to scrap a performance venue – citing a sufficient number of performance venues in the city – was to make way for the new museum.

Speaking on a radio programme on Monday, Ip said he understood that board members only learned about the plan to build the local museum at a meeting in November during which they generally expressed support for the project.

He claimed preparations for the museum had already begun before the meeting. He added that the government at the meeting updated members about the Jockey Club’s provision of the HK$3.5 billion funding and said prominent local architect Rocco Yim Sen-kee would lead the project.

Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor last week dismissed suggestions that the Jockey Club donation was meant to circumvent funding approval from lawmakers, insisting prior public consultation was unnecessary. Lam also said she would have thought many Hongkongers would be “very happy about this project”.

Ip denied he felt pressured to support the plan and said he believed no extraordinary consideration was given to the project.

But Tanya Chan, deputy chairwoman of a Legco panel monitoring the West Kowloon Cultural District, said on the programme the public should have been consulted before the plan was announced. She pointed to section 19 of the WKCDA Ordinance that states “the Authority shall, in relation to matters concerning the development or operation of arts and cultural facilities, related facilities, ancillary facilities and any other matters as the Authority considers fit, consult the public at such time and in such manner as it considers appropriate”.

But Ip thought public consultation was not necessary this time, arguing the plan was a special case. “The palace museum exhibits are grade one artefacts, so there are some privacy concerns,” he said.

(West Kowloon Cultural District Authority) Press Statement. December 31, 2016.

The Board of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (WKCDA) has noted that there have been various comments on the Hong Kong Palace Museum project and wishes to make the following statement.

The building of the Hong Kong Palace Museum in West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) was unanimously approved by the WKCDA Board at a special Board meeting on 28 November 2016. Prior to that, the Chairman consulted senior members of the Board including the Vice Chairman, Mr Ronald Arculli and Chairman of the then Museum Committee, Mr Victor Lo in the first half of 2016 and two detailed briefings for Board members were conducted by the Chairman and senior Home Affairs Bureau officials.  The Board warmly welcomed this new museum project in WKCD and learnt that it was based on long-established cultural co-operation between the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) of the Hong Kong SAR Government and the Palace Museum.  Specifically, the Board noted that following a collaborative agreement signed between the two sides in 2012, large-scale exhibitions have been organised by LCSD museums in collaboration with the Palace Museum every year.  These exhibitions have been very well received by members of the public as they offer a glimpse of the valuable collections of the Palace Museum and its fascinating history.

The Board appreciates that establishing a world class museum - the Hong Kong Palace Museum – in Hong Kong to showcase the best and most valuable artefacts from the world renowned collection of the Palace Museum through a long-term loan arrangement is unique.  Such an arrangement has never been agreed before. This is a pivotal point in international museum practice. The Board has given the project full support in light of its benefit to Hong Kong and the WKCD.  The Board acknowledges that the majority in the community understand the importance of this agreement and the very special nature of the Hong Kong Palace Museum.

In response to a comment on whether the Hong Kong Palace Museum fits into the vision and objective of WKCD, a Board spokesman pointed out that one of the functions of the Authority as set out specifically in section 4 of the WKCDA Ordinance (subsection 2(j) refers) is “to facilitate and enhance cultural exchange and cooperation between the Mainland of China and Hong Kong, and any other place”.  It is clear that the Hong Kong Palace Museum will provide that platform for not only enhanced cultural exchange between Hong Kong and the Mainland, but also through Hong Kong, between the Palace Museum and the world.  The Hong Kong Palace Museum is also highly complementary to the core arts and cultural facilities in WKCD already under construction or planning.  In addition, Hong Kong Palace Museum will provide a valuable opportunity for collaboration with local institutions in research and education. Together with M+ Museum (under construction), the two museums will provide a broader scope to nurture the careers of professionals across curatorial, educational, conservation and other professional areas of museum management in Hong Kong.

In short, the Hong Kong Palace Museum will immeasurably enrich Hong Kong’s arts and cultural life, nurture local professionals in the museum management industry and add to the cultural attraction within the District, offering local and international visitors an opportunity to see parts of the magnificent imperial collection in Hong Kong.

Regarding another comment that WKCD should only feature contemporary arts and culture, a Board spokesman said that this simply was not the case. The WKCDA’s vision is to develop an integrated art and cultural hub to provide art, leisure, and tourism programmes of an international standard, providing a “must-visit” appeal to local residents and visitors from around the world.  The building of the Xiqu Centre along with the Lyric Theatre Complex as well as other musical and performance venues is an illustration of the breadth of WKCD. WKCDA will endeavour to achieve objectives as set out in the WKCDA Ordinance including enhancement of the appreciation of a diverse and pluralistic range of the arts.  The establishment of the Hong Kong Palace Museum is fully aligned with this vision.

In accordance with relevant provisions in the WKCDA Ordinance, the preparation of the Development Plan had gone through an extensive public consultation process before it was agreed by the Town Planning Board for gazettal in early 2012 and approved by the Chief Executive in Council in early 2013. The building of the Hong Kong Palace Museum on a 10,000m2 site is a use that is always permitted under the approved Development Plan for the WKCD and its proposed gross floor area and building height do not exceed the restrictions of the relevant sub-zone on the Development Plan. Therefore, it does not require planning permission from the Town Planning Board and the related public consultation.

The Hong Kong Palace Museum is a very important project for WKCD, which itself is the largest ever cultural investment in Hong Kong.  The Board is thankful to the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust for the $3.5 billion donation to support the Hong Kong Palace Museum project. The Board took the view that the Hong Kong Palace Museum should be designed by a local architect. Mr Rocco Yim has very good understanding of the vision of WKCD, and is recognised for his expertise on the design and execution of world class museum buildings, with both the Guangdong Museum and the Yunnan Provincial Museum designed by him winning The Hong Kong Institute of Architects Medal of the Year Outside Hong Kong and the First Prize Award, International Invited Competition. Mr Yim is also known to be an aficionado of Chinese arts.  His contributions have not only won acknowledgement from his peers, but also helped enhance the position and reputation of Hong Kong’s architectural industry internationally.  The Board therefore considered it justifiable to directly commission Rocco Design Architects as the architect for the project.

The Board was not in a position to disclose any information on the project before the formal signing of The Memorandum of Understanding on the establishment of the Hong Kong Palace Museum. Now that announcement has been made, the Board is keen to engage the public and stakeholders in taking forward the project and will shortly make known the timing and manner for such engagement.

The Board is aware that there have been some commentaries that suggest the decision not to proceed with the Mega Performance Venue (MPV) was in some way linked to the Hong Kong Palace Museum project. This is simply not true. WKCDA took careful account of all relevant factors, particularly the business viability and market environment when deciding not to proceed with the MPV. Other factors also included the Government’s public commitment to press ahead with the 50 000-seat stadium (which is capable of being configured into performance venues of varying audience capacities) in the Kai Tak Sports Park project and the retention of the 12 500-seat Hong Kong Coliseum for sports and performance purposes.

In order to ensure that the review of the viability of the MPV was carried out in the most professional manner possible, the WKCDA appointed independent consultants to carry out a comprehensive review of the issues surrounding the establishment of the MPV in WKCD.  After careful consideration of their report, the Board came to the conclusion that the original MPV was no longer a viable proposition, and instead the site in question should be designated for the development of a medium-sized, multi-purpose venue for exhibition, convention and performance purposes; or be considered for other alternative use. The decision taken by the Board in September 2016 regarding the future of the MPV was based only on the technical and business merits of the case.  In actual fact, the Hong Kong Palace Museum makes use of only part of the MPV site. The remaining part is large enough to accommodate an Exhibition Centre suitable for multiple purposes.

Looking forward, the Board will continue to listen to all views and suggestions the community may have on the development of the WKCD and will do its best to provide a platform for the production and hosting of world class exhibitions, performances, and cultural events.

Internet comments:

- West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance. Section 19 Public Consultation.

Without prejudice to section 21(3)(a), the Authority shall, in relation to matters concerning the development or operation of arts and cultural facilities, related facilities, ancillary facilities and any other matters as the Authority considers fit, consult the public at such time and in such manner as it considers appropriate.

Section 21 Preparation of development plans, etc.

(3) In preparing a development plan, the Authority shall--

(a) consult the public at such time and in such a manner as it considers appropriate;

With due respect, this does not read:

The Authority shall, in relation to matters concerning the development or operation of arts and cultural facilities, related facilities, ancillary facilities and any other matters as the Authority considers fit, consult the public at such time and in such manner as it considers appropriate.

- If every single aspect of the West Kowloon Cultural District involves public consultation, then why do we need the WKCD Authority for?

- The public consultation over the West Kowloon Cultural District had taken place in three phases already:

Phase I: 2009 October 8-2010 January 7: To understand the public expectations of the planning and software/hardware development

Phase II: 2010 August 20-2010 November 20: To present the proposed design of Foster+Partners and other designers, with the public eventually accepting the Garden in the City proposal of Foster+Partners

Phase III: 2011 September 30-2011 October 30: To win public support for the overall direction of the plan of development

The Chief Executive and the Legislative Council approved a Development Plan for the West Kowloon Cultural District on February 25, 2013. The proposed Palace Museum is located on the west side of of the WKCD. In the Development Plan, the area is marked as intended for "Art, Culture, Entertainment and Residential Use." This means that an Exhibition or Convention Hall is allowable at the site. Thus, the Palace Museum is consistent with the approved Development Plan and therefore another round of public consultation is not necessary.

- According to West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance Section 4 Functions of Authority:

(1) The functions of the Authority are—

(b) to develop the leased area in accordance with the land use and other requirements or conditions specified in the approved development plan;

(c) either alone or jointly or by agreement with any other person, to provide (including plan, design and construct), operate, manage, maintain or otherwise deal with arts and cultural facilities, related facilities or ancillary facilities;

(2) The Authority shall perform its functions under subsection (1) in ways which aim to achieve the following objectives—

(j) to facilitate and enhance cultural exchange and cooperation between the Mainland of China, Hong Kong and any other place;

(l) to encourage community, commercial and corporate support and sponsorship of arts and culture;

(n) to strengthen the position of Hong Kong as a tourist destination.

The Palace Museum satisfies these requirements.

- And if the pan-democratic legislators object to the negotiations with mainland Chinese authorities and to the donation from the Hong Kong Jockey Club without prior public consultation, here is West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance Section 5 Powers of Authority:

(1) The Authority may do all such things as are necessary for, or incidental or conducive to, the performance of its functions under this Ordinance.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the Authority may—

(f) receive and solicit gifts, donations or sponsorship, whether on trust or otherwise, and act as trustee of moneys or other properties vested in it on trust, for any purposes consistent with the objectives specified in section 4(2);

(j) liaise and cooperate with any person, whether within or outside Hong Kong, for any purposes consistent with the objectives specified in section 4(2);

- (Oriental Daily) December 27, 2016.

It was announced that there will be a Palace Museum at the West Kowloon Cultural District. This led to another round of criticisms of "lack of consultation", "black box operation" and so on. Please don't come up with these excuses! The key issue is not about the level of transparency of any consultation process; it is about the fact that the exhibit artefacts come from China and not from Great Britain. I will bet that if the artefacts are provided by the British Museum, none of these critics would even let off a fart. Instead, they will applaud Hong Kong for being a global cosmopolitan international city.

In Hong Kong, there is a market for "逢中必反" (always opposing all things Chinese). Politicians find this to be a good selling point. Interestingly, the critics are homing on "procedural justice" and completely ignoring the value of the relevant artefacts.

The fact is that these artefacts are being sent out from the Forbidden City for the first time. Where is it going? To Hong Kong, and not to any other province or city. You can say that this is a nefarious plot to cultivate identification with China in the manner of a soft power version of national education. But you cannot say that the artefacts have zero value. To the extent that even the critics cannot find fault with the artefacts, it is a reminder for all of you to view them when they arrive here.

- CNN Top 20 Museums of the World (annual number of visits)

1. Louvre, Paris, France (8,700,000 visitors)
2. National Museum of China, Beijing, China (7,290,000)
3. Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., United States (6,900,000)
3. Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, Washington, D.C., United States (6,900,000)
5. British Museum, London, United Kingdom (6,821,000)
6. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, United States (6,300,000)
7. Vatican Museums, Vatican, Vatican City (6,002,000)
8. Shanghai Science & Technology Museum, Shanghai, China (5,948,000)
9. National Gallery, London, United Kingdom (5,908,000)
10. National Palace Museum (Taiwan), Taipei, Taiwan (5,288,000)
11. Natural History Museum, London, United Kingdom (5,284,000)
12. American Museum of Natural History, New York, United States (5,000,000)
13 Tate Modern, London, United Kingdom (4,713,000)
14 National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., United States (4,104,000)
15. National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C., U.S. (4,100,000)
16. State Hermitage, St. Petersburg, Russia (3,668,000)
17. Musee d'Orsay, Paris, France (3,440,000)
18. Victoria and Albert Museum, London, United Kingdom (3,432,000)
19. China Science and Technology Museum, Beijing (3,360,000)
20. Science Museum (South Kensington), London, United Kingdom (3,356,000)

#2, #8 and #19 promote Chinese chauvinism and are not welcome by the Hong Kong Nation. #10 depends on the decision of the New Power Party of Taiwan (actually, they might want to ship everything over to Hong Kong on permanent loan because they want so much to de-Sinocize (=delouse) themselves). Everything else is politically correct to host in the Hong Kong Nation.

- Is showing some artifacts from the Forbidden Palace Museum in Beijing going to brainwash young Hongkongers? Well, if there is any truth to this, we must immediately notify the Taiwan government -- their National Palace Museum has been exhibiting similar artefacts since the 1950's. Quick, they must immediately seal off the NPM and begin a deprogramming campaign for their citizens!

- Next to the West Kowloon Cultural District, the Tsim Sha Tsui district has a number of Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) facilities: the Hong Kong Museum of History; the Hong Kong Museum of Art; the Hong Kong Science Museum; the Hong Kong Space Museum; the Hong Kong Cultural Centre. So why was it necessary to have a West Kowloon Cultural District not under the LCSD?

Well, if you have vision, then the natural position of Hong Kong in a globalized world is to become a global cultural hub with branches of the Forbidden Palace, Guggenheim Museum, Louvre, Centre Pompidou, MOMA, Metropolitan Museum, British Museum, Prado, Vatican Museums, etc. You have to start somewhere and the easiest one to tackle is the Forbidden Palace Museum in Beijing. Once you have the first one, the rest will come rolling in. Unfortunately, the reaction to the first one was a petulant display of xenophobia/sinophobia. Nobody else will come here to run a gauntlet of insults and curses.

- The former West Kowloon Cultural District Authority CEO said that a Palace Museum would upset the role of the district as a hub of "contemporary art." This is perplexing given some of the other known facilities. For example, the Xiqu Centre will be a world-class arts venue specifically built for traditional xiqu (Chinese opera, such as Cantonese opera, Peking opera, Jiaozhou opera, Kun opera) performances. There is also an opera house for performing western classical and operatic music. Why are these not in conflict with the notion of "contemporary art" but the Palace Museum is?

- Well, Chan Chi-wan has suggested that the British Museum also open a branch in Hong Kong to share their Chinese artefacts. But what about the loot from the Summer Palace?

“Two robbers breaking into a museum, devastating, looting and burning, leaving laughing hand-in-hand with their bags full of treasures; one of the robbers is called France and the other Britain."

So raged the French novelist, Victor Hugo, at the sack of the Summer Palace during the Second Opium War. The Eighth Earl of Elgin — the son of the Lord Elgin who acquired the Parthenon Marbles — plundered the treasures of the Beijing Palace in 1860, together with the French army, and then ordered his soldiers to set it on fire.

The Chinese government estimates that about 1.5 million items were taken. Whilst this figure is speculative, even Elgin emphasised the size of the place and the scale of pillaging, writing: “There was not a room I saw in which half the things had not been taken away or broken in pieces.” So acquisitive were they that they lifted the Empress’s Pekingese dog, which was presented to Queen Victoria and christened ‘Looty’.

The term loot came to be a badge of honour, demonstrating imperial humiliation, as suggests the stamp on this gilt metal box, up for grabs a few years ago at the auctioneers Woolley & Wallis, where a fine and rare Chinese Qing dynasty Imperial gilt container sold, bearing the inscription — "Loot from the Summer Palace, Pekin, Oct. 1860.” 

But the catalogue doesn't go into the details of how the object was obtained. 

The Summer Palace – Yuan Ming Yuan in Chinese - was built during the 18th and early 19th century. Described by Victor Hugo as a “masterpiece”, a “dazzling cavern of human fantasy with the face of a temple and palace”, it was where the emperors of the Qing Dynasty lived and handled government affairs, a grand complex of buildings and gardens. 

British troops looted the palace in order to punish the Imperial Court which had refused to allow Western embassies inside Beijing, during the Second Opium War, and in retaliation for the brutal torture and execution of almost twenty European and Indian prisoners.

The soldiers tore into the multiple rooms, grabbing and smashing the delicate porcelain and jade works of art, ripping down the elaborate textiles, looking for gold and silver and anything else they could get their hands on. ‘[T]hey seemed to have been seized with a temporary insanity,’ observed Deputy-Assistant Quartermaster General Garnet Wolseley, describing how, ‘in body and soul they were absorbed in one pursuit, which was plunder, plunder’. 

Elgin instructed the soldiers to set the buildings on fire. Soldiers burned the libraries and rare books, then all of the palaces: the temples, halls, pavilions, the Jade Fountain Park, and the grand Main Audience Hall with its marble floor. Elgin appears to have experienced feelings of regret about the acts he sanctioned: ‘Plundering and devastating a place like this is bad enough but what is worst is the waste and breakage.’ Despite these reservations, he remained resolute about the action. Plundering and burning the palace was unquestionably the best option available. Elgin elaborated: “It was the Emperor’s favourite residence, and its destruction could not fail to be a blow to his pride as well as his feelings.” It is said to have taken over 4000 men and 3 days to leave it a blackened shell.

The usual practice was to auction the booty through official channels when back in Britain, but in this instance Major General Gordon departed from the norm, and held the sale immediately. The items were sold on the spot and the money realised was distributed between the men according to rank.

In Britain, the arrival of the treasures served as material proof of British dominance and the humiliation of the Chinese. Many of the objects were sent to Queen Victoria, where they took their place alongside other spoils from the victories of the British army. A large collection was sent to France, whose soldiers had also taken part in the pillaging. Pekinese dogs were taken from the palace and brought to Europe, including Looty, seized by a captain J. Hart Dunne and later presented to Queen Victoria; it lived at Windsor Castle for a further eleven years. 

By the 1870s, the treasures began to enter museums. Displaying the objects as war loot demonstrated the power of the British army over the Chinese emperor, so they were often promoted as loot rather than art, in a story that emphasised British victory and domination. Art and objects were proudly labelled ‘From the Summer Palace of the Emperor of China’. Indeed, the kudos was such that it is likely that more items were labelled loot than actually were. 

We know that the Royal Engineers Museum at Chatham in Kent has a collection of chinoiserie brought back by General Gordon, including a large imperial couch with dragon carvings. The V&A has one of the most comprehensive collections of Chinese art in the West. On display are spectacular treasures from Yuan Ming Yuan, including a pair of cloisonné fishbowls, a filigree headdress with blue feathers and pearls, beautiful jade vases, and elaborately embroidered silk robes. 

But this would be bad propaganda. Firstly, it means that the young people of Hong Kong may find out what the armies of the Eight-Nation Alliance (Japan, Russia, Great Britain, France, the United States, Germany, Italy and the Austro-Hungary Empire) actually did in China. Secondly, it means that the young people of Hong Kong may out find out something about Chinese culture. Since the Hong Kong Nation is a completely different race from the Chinese, we don't need this foreign culture from China. What we need is a Hong Kong Localist Museum, with key exhibits being:

- Replicas of Blake Pier and Queen's Pier
- A virtual reality simulation of an airplane landing at the old Kai Tak Airport
- A replica of the Supermarine Walrus that was part of the Hong Kong garrison during the Battle of Hong Kong in 1939 [it was destroyed on the ground as soon as the battle began]
- A virtual reality simulation of the Canadian Winnipeg Grenadiers in two pillboxes holding off 50,000 crazy Japanese soldiers at Wong Nai Chung Gap during the Battle of Hong Kong
- A cinema showing loops of videos from Occupy Central showing how a dozen students scared the PLA to hide and cower in their barracks
- A ride simulating mainland tourists running a gauntlet of valiant Localists warriors (reference: The Jaws);
- A wax museum features statues of Localist heroes such as Jimmy Lai, Benny Tai, Leung Kwok-hung, Albert Ho, Lee Cheuk-yan, Edward Leung, Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching, Ray Wong, Chan Ho-tin, Lau Siu-lai, Nathan Law, Joshua Wong, Billy Fung, Chu Hoi Dick, Andy Yung, Eric Poon, Wong Yeung-tat, Wan Chin, Bonsai Keiko, Denise Ho, Chapman To, etc.

People from all over the world will come to Hong Kong just to visit this Hong Kong Localist Museum. It will be declared a World Heritage site.

- The two most urgent tasks for the Hong Kong Nation are:

De-sinofication: All traces of Chinese influence must be eradicated. For example, Chinese history must not be taught in the schools; Sung Wong Toi must be razed to the ground; RTHK must cancel its putonghua service; etc.

Anti-sinofication: All attempts to introduce Chinese influence must be resisted valiantly. The Palace Museum project is the most recent instance.

- (Hong Kong Jockey Club) December 23, 2016.

The Hong Kong Jockey Club today (23 December) announced its support for the establishment of the Hong Kong Palace Museum (HKPM) with funding of HK$3.5 billion.  In Beijing today, Club Chairman Dr S O Simon Ip and Steward Dr Eric Li Ka Cheung joined Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Mr C Y Leung, Minister of Culture of the People’s Republic of China Mr Luo Shugang and four other guests to witness the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding of Co-operation for the project by Chief Secretary for Administration and Chairman of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Board Mrs Carrie Lam and Director of the Palace Museum Dr Shan Jixiang.  The other witnesses were Deputy Director of Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council Mr Zhou Bo, Deputy Minister of Culture Mr Ding Wei, Director of State Administration of Cultural Heritage Mr Liu Yuzhu, and Member of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Board Mr Leo Kung.

The HKPM, expected to open in 2022, will be the first venue outside the Palace Museum in Beijing to showcase its exquisite collections on a long-term basis.  This new city landmark will mark a milestone in Hong Kong’s arts and cultural development.

“The Museum, to be located in the heart of the city like many national museums worldwide, will add to Hong Kong’s urban uniqueness and help strengthen its status as a world-class city,” said Dr Ip.  “Showcasing the exquisite collections of the Palace Museum on a long-term basis, this new landmark will provide Hong Kong people with a unique opportunity to appreciate the national treasures in their home city.  It will also help promote them to overseas visitors.  We at the Club are honoured to be able to fund this meaningful project and we look forward to the establishment of this gem of arts and culture.”

The Club strongly believes in the intrinsic social value of arts and culture, so has long been a keen contributor to this area. In 1984, The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts was established with a Club donation. Ten years ago, the Club embarked on the revitalisation of the Central Police Station Compound in the business hub of Hong Kong which is the Club’s flagship initiative in cultural and heritage conservation. On the software front, the Club has brought Hong Kong many world-class exhibitions over the years.  Among them, four extremely popular examples have been presented in collaboration with the HKSAR Government and the Palace Museum, including a current exhibition under The Hong Kong Jockey Club Series showcasing the Grand Weddings of the Qing Emperors.

- It is wrong for the Hong Kong Jockey Club to do this. Every single cent of their immoral unethical ill-gotten money should be handed over the the "Yellow Ribbons" at the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts to build the Hong Kong Nation. We the People of the Hong Kong Nation are a completely different race from the Shina people on mainland China. We don't want anything to do with THEM.

- Chan Yan-chong wrote: "The opposition always opposes for the sake of opposing. As soon as they heard about the Palace Museum project, their initial reactions were: Why was there no consultation? Why did they go to to the Hong Kong Jockey Club for funding instead of requesting funding from the Legislative Council? Why not build more Performance Auditoriums instead of this Palace Museum? Was this done to curry favors with the Central Government?"

- (Speakout HK) (Video)

Legislative Councilor Claudia Mo Man-ching said that the government did not hold any consultation over the Palace Museum in the West Kowloon Cultural District, so that the project is a "huge boot-licking exercise to suck up to Beijing."

Legislative Councilor and West Cultural District Authority director Lo Wai-kwok said that the Palace Museum in Beijing holds a lot of national-class treasures and the process of negotiation with the mainland authorities had to be conducted in secrecy. When China presented a pair of panda bears to Hong Kong, there was never an issue of whether the People of Hong Kong should be consulted on whether they want the panda bears or not.

Lo Wai-kwok said that Hong Kong is the beneficiary of the Palace Museum. "It makes no sense to say that Hong Kong is licking Beijing's ass." He said that the Palace Museum would be a huge plus as the centre of the West Kowloon Cultural District. Visitors will have a special site to visit. "I believe that the majority of the people of Hong Kong will not object; they will even think that this is wonderful."

- Why weren't public consultations held? Because consultation is no longer meaningful in Hong Kong. Once upon a time, public consultation means:

Public consultation, or simply consultation, is a regulatory process by which the public's input on matters affecting them is sought. Its main goals are in improving the efficiency, transparency and public involvement in large-scale projects or laws and policies. It usually involves notification (to publicise the matter to be consulted on), consultation (a two-way flow of information and opinion exchange) as well as participation (involving interest groups in the drafting of policy or legislation).

Today in Hong Kong, public consultation is merely agitprop and performance art for professional demonstrators to seek media exposure. For example, CY Leung went to a public consultation and John Tsang got egg in his face. Of course, the television channels kept replaying the scene but they won't tell us what the issues and opinions were for the particular public consultation.

- If you hold a public consultation on the Palace Museum, it will be a chance for some Hong Kong Nation guy to spend his three minutes of fame with a speech about Chinamen imposing post-colonial colonialism and oppressing freedom/democracy/human rights/rule-of-law/universal suffrage in Hong Kong.

In Hong Kong, there is freedom of speech. So this Hong Kong Nation guy is free to say all that anytime anywhere that he pleases (in accordance with the laws). However, nobody is going to listen to him under normal circumstances. So he needs a public platform to expound his views, even though what he says is irrelevant to the public issue at hand.

If a person gives a normal speech, it won't be aired on television news programs. So the person needs to go beyond the normal with some catchy slogans ("The end of One Country Two Systems!") and a passionate performance. However, the person cannot go too far (such as using obscenities) because that won't be aired either.

- For example, the government/Jockey Club proposal has Rocco Yim as the architect. Public consultation means dragging him in front of a public forum and be abused. Maybe he isn't so interested in such a circumstance because he really does not lack business.

- Yes, indeed, the oppositionists are already talking about holding an open competition for the best design to be voted upon by the people of Hong Kong. If Miss Hong Kong can be put to a public vote, then why can't the Palace Museum?

- Relevant post from December 17, 2004: Pictures At An Exhibition, and another from October 9, 2015: The West Kowloon Cultural District Poll fraud. That was twelve years ago and today the site is still wasteland.

- On certain issues, it is reasonable to hold public consultation because the public may have divergent views. For example, such an issue might be the universal retirement protection. What is the retirement age? How much payment per person? Will it be means-tested (based upon assets and/or income)? Do you really want to thrust $3,000 per month onto Li Ka-shing, the wealthiest man in Asia? Etc.

On the Palace Museum, what can the questions be? Is it good for Hong Kong to get a globally famous tourist attraction? Is it good to learn more about Chinese history and culture? Is it good for the taxpayers not to pay for Palace Museum? There does not seem to be a lot of controversy here. The main reason why 24 Legislative Councilors want public hearings is to let them appear on television and get some air time.

- Simply put, the Palace Museum is a good thing. It is a lost cause to try to argue that the idea is bad. That is why the oppositionists have to focus on 'public consultation' instead. But even that seems weak after a careful reading of the relevant ordinances. So lately the focus has been shifted to capitalization. Is the $3.5 billion from the Hong Kong Jockey Club going to be enough? Who picks up any cost overruns? But at this point, these are hypothetical questions. As Leon Lai says, he refuses to answer hypothetical questions.

- At least as yet we don't have people who claim that the CIA/FBI have implanted chips in their brains and talk to them all the time.

- The Legislative Council needs to hold public consultations to see if the public wants them to stop holding public consultations and simply get on with the job of legislating.

- Apart from the WKCD Palace Museum, we need immediate public consultations on other projects such as:

Cutting off all funding for the Zhuhai-Hong Kong-Macau Bridge in order to re-evaluate the impact on the white dolphin population

Cutting off all funding for the Hong Kong/Shenzhen Science and Technology Parks in order to study traffic impact and commutation in more detail

Cutting off all funding for large-scare infrastructure projects such as the Express Rail Link in order to make way for farmland so that Hong Kong can be self-sufficient in food supply

Cutting off all funding for the third runway at the Hong Kong International Airport in order to debate alternate uses at the location (such as building public housing)

Allocating funding to build 10 more public hospitals and hire 20,000 more doctors/nurses to staff them

Allocating funding to build 250,000 public housing units within the next 12 months

Stopping the crackdown on fake political asylum seekers from South Asia/Africa

Stopping police brutality against innocent citizens exercising their freedoms of speech and assembly

Enacting urgent legislation to delete Article 23 (National Security) from the Hong Kong Basic Law in order to stem future controversy

Enacting urgent legislation to create a 'mask law' against covering up one's face at demonstration

Enacting urgent legislation against insulting a public service worker (such as a police officer)

Enacting urgent legislation to protect desecration of the national flag

Providing universal pension payments of $20,000 per month to all persons aged 55 or over

- The Localists have the ultimate weapon in their hands -- they should immediately issued a threat that if the Hong Kong Palace Museum ever opens, the Localists will charge in and smash everything in sight in order to express their resistance to cultural neo-colonialism!

- We nominate Edward Leung Tin-kei (Hong Kong Indigenous) and Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous) to lead this signature campaign. After all, they had said that they have no red lines when it comes to resistance and this time they will show us what they are really made of.

- Obviously the professional oppositionists will not concede defeat so easily. It may be that the Palace Museum has been approved by the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority. But the People still have the almighty Judicial Review (JR) in hand. All they need is to find an illiterate grandmother to apply for a judicial review on any number of issues: lack of public consultation; lack of environment impact study; lack of study on the impact of local fish population; lack of study of alternate proposals (such as keeping the land as mosquito-infested swampland); conversion of the lot into farmland so that Hong Kong can be self-sufficient in food supply; building a reservoir so that Hong Kong can be self-sufficient in water; etc.

- The West Kowloon Cultural District has a good cousin/precedent in Westway (New York City). There is plenty of tactics that Hong Kong's professional oppositionists can learn from that piece of history. The New York oppositionists managed to delay the project for more than 30 years and bought valuable time for the Hudson River flounder population.

- (Apple Daily) Commentator Martin Oei has this brilliant suggestion on Facebook on how to kill off the Hong Kong Palace Museum overnight. He proposes that the people of Hong Kong use the Palace Museum to commemorate June 4th. "I am afraid that if Beijing finds out that the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China intends to commemorate June 4th in front of the Hong Kong Palace Museum, they are going to abandon the project immediately."

- (Wong Onyin's Facebook) Martin Oei, our commentator from Java (=Indonesia), pretends that he is acting in the best interest of Hong Kong, but his heart is really very fucking dark and evil. The leftist retards are even rising up to the call! Fuck you, assholes! The Localists only want the people of Hong Kong to forget about commemorating June 4th; they are not asking you to distort the event for your own purposes. Is this respectful to the dead? Do you Hong Kong pigs think that the deceased and their families like what you do? Suppose tomorrow Java lets their cultural artifacts be exhibited in Hong Kong. Will you guys fucking go in front of the museum to exhibit historical photos of Indonesians raping and killing Chinese women during the anti-Chinese riots and demand accountability and apologies?

- (Wong Onyin's Facebook) If Martin Oei had any brains, he wouldn't be unemployed at age 40. There is only one parking lot and a road outside the Hong Kong Palace Museum. This is not Victoria Park. You can fit at most 1,000 or 2,000 people in there. What do you plan to accomplish with so few people? Secondly, you are only going to do this once a year on June 4th. Do you think that they are worried? If you think that is going to make them stop the project, why don't you call up several tens of thousands of people to gather on De Voeux Road West outside the China Liaison Office? See if the China Liaison Office will close down operations in Hong Kong? Finally, the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China is a 'patriotic' organization. Are they going to listen to the orders from someone from Java? Since when does the Alliance hate Chinese culture just like the Javanese do?

- (EJ Insight) Is Carrie Lam using Palace Museum to run for chief executive?  By SC Yeung. December 28, 2016.

Chief Secretary Carrie Lam maintained her silence about her political plans for two weeks after her immediate boss, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, announced his decision not to seek a second term in office. 

Then, in a visit to the Chinese capital last week, or just before the Christmas holiday, Hong Kong’s No. 2 official appeared to have kicked off her campaign by announcing a deal to build the city’s own version of Beijing’s Palace Museum at the West Kowloon arts hub.

She had probably thought her announcement would be met with jubilation in Hong Kong, but instead, many criticized her for the secrecy that surrounded the deal.

After CY Leung dropped out of the chief executive race earlier this month, Lam changed her mind about retiring from public service at the end of her term and said she was not ruling out running for the city’s top job.

For the pro-CY Leung camp and several Beijing loyalists, Lam is the best choice for the leadership post – next to CY himself – in view of her tough stance against the localists and fierce loyalty to Beijing. She would continue Leung’s governing style in Hong Kong.

But what could be the opening salvo of her campaign, the Palace Museum deal, did not sit well with the public, who questioned the timing of the announcement.

They are also asking: Why did she keep such a major change in the land use of the West Kowloon Cultural District a secret to the public before announcing the deal? Are there any conditions behind the deal?

The project, which will showcase the treasures of imperial China from the original museum in Beijing, is intended to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China next year.

The Jockey Club has agreed to fund the HK$3.5 billion project that will have a total floor area of 30,000 square meters.

Because the Jockey Club will bankroll the project, the government can bypass the Legislative Council as far as the budget for the construction of the museum is concerned.

All of the spending related to the project will be outside of the legislators’ scrutiny. Well, not really.

The government will still need funding to run the museum, and that would be recurring expense that would have to be included in the city’s budget and, since it involved taxpayers’ money, would need Legco’s approval.

While Lam has yet to declare her entry into the chief executive race, she is the highest government official responsible for the West Kowloon Cultural District development.

There is no doubt that the project has a political angle. It is no secret that Beijing aims to stop the growth of the Hong Kong independence mindset, especially among the youth, and the best way to do that is to instill in them the love of Chinese history and culture.

The government did propose to amend the Chinese History curriculum to focus more on the country’s modern history, particularly the establishment of the People’s Republic in 1949.

The Palace Museum project could be part of Beijing’s efforts to promote the glorious achievements of the ruling Communist Party over the past six decades.

The aim is to shed the negative image of the party among the Hong Kong youth, its authoritarian rule and poor human rights record.

From Beijing’s perspective, the establishment of the Palace Museum in Hong Kong will help develop Hong Kong into a Chinese international city, rather than just simply an international city.

Such an objective is the reason Beijing has included Hong Kong in its five-year economic blueprints and enabled the city to play a role in the planning of the “one belt, one road” initiative.

Beijing wants to remind Hong Kong people that their city is part of China and therefore subject to China’s rules and plans.

And in Hong Kong’s relationship with the motherland, the “one country” part of the governing principle is more important than “two systems”.

But from Hong Kong’s perspective, what Lam has done by forging the Palace Museum deal is destroy the policymaking procedures that have been in place and working well for the city for decades.

The project bypassed the normal procedures and kept those who are supposed to be involved in it unaware of what’s going on until it was officially announced last week.

Some political observers said the project is precedent-setting since Beijing can now initiate projects and programs in collaboration with top government officials without having to pass through Legco and the normal channels simply by using non-taxpayers’ money.

Now Beijing can simply forget public consultation or the pan-democrats’ opposition and just push through with its policies and programs.

West Kowloon is a key point in Beijing’s plans to further integrate Hong Kong with the mainland as it is a terminus of the cross-border high-speed railway.

Building a Palace Museum next to the rail station will bind Hong Kong and China not only physically but also, infrastructure-wise, culturally and spiritually. So there goes Hong Kong’s uniqueness. 

And it would be a testament to Lam’s loyalty to Beijing if the project finds realization.

An achievement big enough for her to win the city’s top job.

- (EJ Insight) Who is politicising the Palace Museum project?  By SC Yeung. January 4, 2017.

The Palace Museum project has become something of a political game.

On Tuesday, a group of of antique collectors formed a group in support of the project, saying Hong Kong people should thank the central authorities for the “gift” instead of criticizing the initiative.

Eddy Li, the group’s honorary secretary, said Hong Kong stands to benefit from the project and decried the politicisation of the plan.

Li, an antique collector, said the West Kowloon Cultural District is the perfect location for the museum as the arts hub is to supposed to be a melting pot of artistic expressions.

“Let people know about Chinese history. Let them see our collection which we’re proud of,” he said.

Li and other Beijing loyalists are missing the point.

In fact, Hong Kong people might be in favor of such a project but they object to the way it was all wrapped up behind the scenes.

The Hong Kong Jockey Club will foot the bill, which means the project can bypass the Legislative Council for funding, but it does not mean Hong Kong people should have no say in it.

If standard procedure had been followed, there would have been a public consultation and our lawmakers would have been briefed.

But this is exactly the kind of unilateral decisions that have caused deep divisions in society.

By making the announcement without consultation, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam, made a bad situation worse.

Now proponents of the project are planning a signature campaign to garner support for the plan. They are eager to use the pro-Beijing media to pitch their ideas to the public.

Meanwhile, the public is tired of this sort of mobilization which has done nothing but exacerbate social conflict.

Lam’s excuse for bypassing normal procedure is that the project is covered by confidentiality due to the nature of the collections, which she said is a state secret.

She is determined to push the project at the expense of transparency and fairness to Hong Kong people.

Of course, it does not hurt to earn some political points from Beijing.

It’s no secret that Lam is interested in running for chief executive, having reconsidered her decision to retire at the end of her term after Leung Chun-ying announced he would not be seeking reelection.

Even now that she has not yet declared her candidacy, she is already being watched closely by the election committee members who will choose Hong Kong’s next leader in March.

She will need to please these people and not worry about those who don’t have a vote in the process — the ordinary taxpayer.

Before the Palace Museum saga, Lam had been viewed as a reasonable choice for Hong Kong’s top job because of her ample experience in government and a generally positive image.

But her missteps in the museum project proved that she is cut from the same cloth as Leung Chun-ying, a blind loyalist to Beijing who could set aside proper policymaking for political expediency.

The Palace Museum project is not simply a cultural issue between Hong Kong and China but it’s a political game that Beijing can leverage on.

It can use culture to strengthen its intellectual influence on Hong Hong as well as tighten its political grip at the same time.

Against such backdrop, many Hong Kong people are suspicious of Lam’s motives. Some are accusing her of betraying her professionalism as a public servant.

- (EJ Insight) Go for the Palace treasures, please. By Mark O'Neill. January 3, 2017.

The Hong Kong public has good questions to ask Carrie Lam over her handling of the proposed Palace Museum. But I have a suggestion – please ensure that the treasures of the Imperial Palace end up here.

This is a precious opportunity to have a long-term lease on some of the world’s finest art pieces that every museum in the world would like to have.

There are several reasons to have them. One is the commercial value. The Palace Museum (PM) in Beijing is the world’s most popular museum, with 15 million visitors a year. It is so popular that it has to put a ceiling of 80,000 entries a day, to control the flood of people during peak holiday times.

Its sister, the National Palace Museum (NPM) in Taipei, which also displays art pieces from the Forbidden City, ranks seventh in the world, with 5.4 million visitors annually. Together, the two attract 20.4 million people a year.

And these are not one-time visitors. Many go to see the pieces many times; such is their appeal.

This means that a museum in Hong Kong would also attract millions of visitors, Chinese and foreign, every year, giving the city another important card in the competition to attract visitors.

This commercial value is more than simple entry tickets. Both the Beijing and Taipei museums earn millions of dollars a year from sales of merchandize, including reproductions, books, post-cards, garments and products inspired by the pieces from which they earn a commission. A Hong Kong branch would also earn a large amount from such sales.

The second reason is that the two museums house the world’s finest collection of Chinese art, including bronze statues, lacquer ware, textiles, pottery, paintings, calligraphy and religious artifacts. The PM has 1.8 million pieces, the NPM nearly 700,000; they were collected by emperors of the Ming and Qing dynasties until the latter was overthrown in 1911.

The collections are so large that, at any one time, the museums can only show a fraction of them at any one. The vast majority of the pieces sleep peacefully in air-conditioned warehouses and tunnels, seen by no one but security cameras and walking guards.

In the PM, less than one percent of the pieces are on display. So it is building a second museum 25 km away in the northeast suburb of Haidian. Phase one of the project involves construction of a 125,000-square-meter building, which would allow a huge number of relics to be displayed.

Nearly 80 exhibitions are held at the current museum each year, but these displays feature only about 0.5 percent of the total number of ancient relics. The new museum expects to attract three million visitors and will, the director hopes, reduce the crush of people at the main site.

In Taipei, the NPM displays about one percent of its collection at any one time. Exhibits are rotated every three months.

So a new museum in Hong Kong would enable more of the treasures to be taken out of their crates and put on public display, for the enjoyment and education of millions of visitors.

The pieces would be here on a long-term basis, a great blessing because of their artistic and cultural value. They would be a great asset for the city. More than political leaders, they symbolize the beauty and history of China.

“The treasures in the palace are the pearls of thousands of years of our culture,” said Na Chi-liang, who worked in both the PM and the NPM from 1925 to 1974. “If one was lost, it was lost forever. If a country is lost, it can be rebuilt. If its culture is lost, there is no hope of rebuilding the country.”

Museums around the world are knocking on the door of the PM and NPM, asking them to loan their pieces.

President Tsai Ying-wen can go almost nowhere because of the isolation of her country. But the pieces from the NPM – and the directors of the museum — are welcome in Washington, Paris, London, Moscow and other capitals that are off limits to her. That shows how sought-after they are.

So, here’s my appeal to the leaders of Hong Kong: discuss all the issues of procedures and funding as you think fit. But please ensure that arguments and conflicts do not result in the PM’s offer being withdrawn and Hong Kong losing for ever the chance to obtain these priceless assets.

- (Ta Kung Pao) December 28, 2016.

Yesterday Apple Daily published an editorial by the title of "Stealing Hong Kong land and money as a present to Beijing." The thesis was that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government is building the Hong Kong Palace Museum not for Hong Kong and its people and not for cultural history and art appreciation, but to brownnose the Central Government so that President Xi Jinping can come to Hong Kong for a ribbon-cutting groundbreaking ceremony next year on the 20th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong.

According to this editorial, Chief Executive CY Leung and Chief Secretary Carrie Lam are robbing Hong Kong and the people of Hong Kong of more than 10,000 square feet of West Kowloon Cultural District land plus $3.5 billion from the Hong Kong Jockey Club.

The fact is that this Hong Kong Palace Museum will be built on the shore of the West Kowloon Cultural District to serve the people of Hong Kong and outside tourists. The land will not be moved to Beijing. The fact is that every cent of the $3.5 billion from the Hong Kong Jockey Club will be spent in Hong Kong on construction and operations. The money will not be moved to Beijing and spent at the Oriental Plaza Mall. So how is this a present to Beijing?

Do you really think that Xi Jinping won't come to the 20th anniversary of the Hong Kong handover without this Palace Museum?

- (SCMP) Hong Kong’s Palace Museum: why we shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth. By Michael Chugani. January 10, 2017.

Let’s imagine a situation. Suppose the Queen consented to the Crown Jewels being displayed at a purpose-built site at the West Kowloon Cultural District. Imagine former British governor Chris Patten quietly negotiated the loan as a goodwill gesture to the city Britain once ruled.

Or let’s imagine Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor won French approval for the Louvre’s famous items, including the Mona Lisa, to be showcased here. Would there be a furious backlash that the public was not consulted?

I think most of us know the answer to that question. Deep down, we also know the outcry over a Hong Kong version of the Palace Museum at the WKCD is fuelled not by the government bypassing a public consultation, but that it is being gifted by Beijing.

What other society would fume over a new museum that displays priceless relics at no cost whatsoever to the public? But we are a society at war with itself, trapped in a quest for an identity that departs from reality. We are unable to fully come to terms with being a part of China 20 years after it became a fact.

Contempt for our communist rulers runs so deep in some of us that we even resist their gift of Chinese artefacts that predate communism by centuries. I can’t help thinking that if Patten instead of Lam had arranged the museum, there may not even have been a backlash.

Lam is mocked as Beijing’s new lapdog by the opposition – which needs an enemy to remain relevant – after she hinted she may run for chief executive now that Leung Chun-ying intends to step down. But if Lam had arranged a display of the Crown Jewels instead of relics from China, the outcry over a skipped consultation would most likely be muted, if it even materialised.

When I heard about the museum, my immediate reaction was things were finally moving at the WKCD after years of delays. We don’t need to consult the public on everything, only things that most affect them. Consultations get us stuck, as evidenced by the Central Market revitalisation. Our officials are paid to make decisions.

I thought Hongkongers would welcome the museum plan. But no. This is what we have become, a society so addicted to political confrontation that we even pick a fight with the bearer of a gift.

- Film director Ko Chi-sum's Facebook:


Public consultation?
Did you ever hold public consultations with citizens before you started Occupy Central? (And you haven't even paid the bill yet)
Did you ever hold public consultations with citizens before you started the Mong Kong riot?
Public consultation ...

- Film director Ko Chi-sum's Facebook:

HK01: Planner Ng Wing-fai: "It is impossible for a museum not to run a deficit." If the Palace Museum keeps losing money, will the people of Hong Kong have to foot the bill?

Ko Chi-sum: Filibustering at the Legislative Council cost lots of money over the long term, and the people of Hong Kong are footing the bill? How come they don't protest? Maybe (and it's only a maybe) the Palace Museum won't make money, but how do you account for its attracting more tourists to come to Hong Kong and spend money here? ...

- Once upon a time, the non-establishment camp's slogan for the 2017 Chief Executive election was ABC -- Anyone But CY. Today we have another kind of ABC -- Anyone But China. A museum at the location would be alright if the partner was Anyone But China.

- (Headline Daily) January 10, 2017.

What kinds of projects require public consultations?

- Building the Express Rail Link to the High Speed Rail
- Building the third runway at the Hong Kong International Airport
- Building the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge
- Expanding the MTR subway stations
- Developing new towns (Sha Tin, Tuen Mun, etc)
- Developing harbor landfills
- Increasing salaries for public servants
- Construction/location of a columbarium
- Construction/location of a museum
- Construction/location of a hospital
- Construction/location of a garbage incinerator
- Construction/location of a garbage landfill
- Construction/location of a bus shelter
- Whether to accept a gift from someone or not ...
- Whether to accept a donation from someone or not ...

What kinds of project do not require public consultations?

- Occupying Admiralty/Mong Kok/Causeway Bay for 79 days
- Digging out bricks and uprooting road signs to throw at the police
- Filibustering at the Legislative Council
- Increasing salaries for Legislative Councilors
- "Dark Money" donations from Jimmy Lai to legislators Lee Cheuk-yan, Leung Kwok-hung, Claudia Mo, etc.
- Protecting fake political asylum seekers from South Asia and Africa
- Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching insulting all Chinese people and abusing the oaths of office
- Constructing a new June 4th Memorial Museum
- Selling the old June 4th Memorial Museum and pocketing the receipts

All good things must undergo public consultation first and then some more public consultation next; all bad things can be just carried out and nobody cares about what you think. No wonder it takes 10 years to construct something, but it takes only 10 seconds to destroy something. Because all the time was spent on public consultations.

- (Wen Wei Po) February 8, 2017.

The Kowloon Federation of Associations interviewed 3,381 adult citizens January 17-22, 2017.

82% said that they support the Hong Kong Palace Museum. Of these, 55% said that they like Chinese history and culture, 18% said that they want a place to go for leisure and 14% said that it will attract foreign tourists.

Of the 17% how said that they do not support the Hong Kong Palace Museum, 73% said that it was because there was no public consultation. Others said they don't care about cultural artifacts, or the location was not convenient, or they were worried about security problems.

As for the best reason for having a Hong Kong Palace Museum, 29% said that it will improve knowledge of Chinese history; 22% said that they they will able to view national treasures; 18% said that it will stimulate tourism.

As for what is the most urgent task at hand, 42% said that they want the Hong Kong government to go ahead on time; 37% said to increase greater public involvement.

As for the contents of the museum, 22.4% wanted calligraphy/paintings; 17.8% wanted bronze artifacts.

Besides the exhibit hall, they also want educational classrooms, souvenir shops and bookstores.

(Apple Daily) December 26, 2016.

On Boxing Day, Yau Wa-ching is giving us all a history lesson. On this 75th anniversary of the Battle of Hong Kong, she criticized the history textbooks for failing to mention the role of the Canadian soldiers. From these textbooks, one cannot find out how many battles were fought, how many British, Canadian and Chinese soldiers were involved, how many casualties were sustained, etc. They only mention that Hong Kong governor Sir Mark Aitchison Young surrendered unconditionally to the Japanese in 1939 (sic). Yau says the government should publicize the contributions of the Canadian soldiers who fought bravely in spite of being young, inexperienced and poorly equipped. Yau said that the Canadian soldiers defended Wong Nai Chung Gap for one to two days. "Because of them, Hong Kong held on for almost one month."

Internet comments:

- This history lesson was a live Facebook broadcast that lasted all of 5 minutes. Yau Wai-ching was unable to memorize her entire speech, so she kept peeking at the text while fumbling over the words. She needs training and/or practice. A lot of it.

- Yau Wai-ching said that textbooks say that the Hong Kong governor Mark Young surrendered in 1939. What textbooks was she reading? The fact is that a delegation of British colonial officials headed by the Governor of Hong Kong, Sir Mark Aitchison Young, surrendered in person on 25 December 1941 at the Japanese headquarters in Room 335 on the third floor of the Peninsula Hong Kong Hotel. The garrison held out for a total of 17 days (December 8-26 1941).

- It is alright not to know history well. Many people don't know history well. But it is not alright to not know history well, and then run a live broadcast commentary filled with errors in the name of teaching history to people. This is fucking embarrassing.

- Mark Aitchison Young assumed the post of Governor of Hong Kong on September 6, 1941 and surrendered Hong Kong to Japanese General Takashi Sakai on December 25, 1941. In 1939, he was serving as the governor and commander-in-chief of the Tanganyika Territory British Mandate. How could he surrender Hong Kong to Japan in 1939?

- Actually, Yau Wai-ching missed the more interesting part of the life and times of Mark Aitchison Young.

Young resumed his duties as Governor of Hong Kong on 1 May 1946, after having spent some time recuperating in England. After returning, he proposed political reforms that would have allowed Hong Kong residents to directly choose a 30-member representative Legislative Council. He envisaged that the new Council would handle everyday affairs and that its decisions would be immune to the Governor's veto. These initiatives were eventually abandoned under the term of Governor Alexander Grantham because of fears of Communist manipulation. Young retired from the governorship in 1947.

So once again, it was the Chinese Communists who stopped universal suffrage in Hong Kong.

- After being made fun of over the error, Yau Wai-ching posted a correction in broken English:

How can Lingnan University let someone who made so many grammatical mistakes in one sentence graduate?

- It is alright not to know English well. Many people don't know English well. But is not alright to not know English well, and then post an erratum in English filled with errors for a Cantonese-language broadcast. This is even more fucking embarrassing.

- It is swell that Yau Wa-ching who pronounced "People's Republic of China" as "People's Re-fucking of Shina" during her oath of office should be teaching us about the history of the Battle of Hong Kong (December 8-26, 1941) and the subsequent Japanese Occupation (1941-1945). Okay, so she thinks that the Canadians saved Hong Kong from falling immediately. But what does Yau Wai-ching think of the following?

- The Massacres

28 members of the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps were executed after the fight for Sai Wan Hill;

two injured officers of the 7th Rajput Regiment and all but three of the male medical staff of the Royal Medical Corps and others were executed at the Salesian Mission;

three captured persons were executed at Causeway Bay, including a female air raid warden;

ten men of the St John Ambulance were executed, along with a policeman and a medic;

four men of 3rd Company HKVDC and four men of the Winnipeg Grenadiers were executed after the battle at Jardine's Lookout;

four men were executed in the so-called Black Hole of Hong Kong;

thirty civilians were executed at Blue Pool Road;

forty-seven POWs were executed after the battle of The Ridge;

fourteen POWs were executed at Overbays

seven POWs were executed at Eucliffe;

as many as 99 persons were executed at St Stephen's College, including three British and four Chinese nurses who were raped and killed;

eight men were captured and executed at Maryknoll Mission;

twenty-six POWs were executed after being captured at the battle of Brick Hill;

- When the Japanese said "Shina", they meant China, including the mainland, Hong Kong and Macau.

- Just as the Japan refuses to apologize for WWII atrocities, Yau Wai-ching refuses to apologize for saying "People's Re-fucking of Shina."

- The young Canucks who fought in the Battle of Hong Kong? Look at the description of C-Force:

In late 1941, the British government accepted an offer by the Canadian Government to send a battalion of the Royal Rifles of Canada (from Quebec) and one of the Winnipeg Grenadiers (from Manitoba) and a brigade headquarters (1,975 personnel) to reinforce the Hong Kong garrison. "C Force", as it was known, arrived on 16 November on board the troopship Awatea and the armed merchant cruiser HMCS Prince David. A total of 96 officers, two Auxiliary Services supervisors and 1,877 other ranks embarked. Included were two medical officers and two nurses (supernumerary to the regimental medical officers), two Canadian Dental Corps officers with assistants, three chaplains and a detachment of the Canadian Postal Corps. (A soldier of the R.C.A.M.C. had stowed away and was sent back to Canada.)

C Force never received its vehicles as the US merchant ship San Jose carrying them was, on the outbreak of the Pacific War, diverted to Manila, in the Philippine Islands, at the request of the US Government. The Royal Rifles had served only in the Dominion of Newfoundland and Saint John, New Brunswick, prior to posting to Hong Kong and the Winnipeg Grenadiers had been deployed to Jamaica. Few Canadian soldiers had field experience but were near fully equipped, except for having only two anti-tank rifles and no ammunition for 2-inch and 3-inch mortars or for signal pistols.

If Canada should ever bring the subject of the C-Force up again, the first question must be: Who the fuck sent these young Canucks to Hong Kong to be slaughtered under those conditions? What was the likelihood of war at the time? Like 100%. What was the chances of a successful defense of Hong Kong until help arrives? Like 0%.

- The Canadians didn't want to be in Hong Kong anyway, but the British government pressured Canada into sending these young untrained men to this Far East outpost because the British wanted all of their soldiers to defend their homeland.

- Perhaps Yau Wai-ching is fantasizing that if the Hong Kong Nation shall declare independence, then Canada and other countries will send their soldiers to Hong Kong to defend against the Chinese Communists.

- A country would be sending its soldiers to certain death. Due to the proximity of Hong Kong to mainland China, it would be impossible to supply and support the soldiers sent to Hong Kong by air or sea. Sooner or later, food and ammunition will run out.

- It should be clear that Hong Kong cannot be defended against a large army marching down from mainland China, either then or now. In 1941, the British needed all their soldiers in Europe and North Africa, but they could not allow the perception that Hong Kong is an open city. So they hired a make-believe army of Canadians.

- Even Canada knew that it was a lost cause. Therefore they sent some young, inexperienced soldiers that they can afford to lose instead of their elite forces.

- We must heard that Amos Yee of Singapore is seeking political asylum in the United States. Maybe Yau Wai-ching plans to seek political asylum in Canada.

- Of all things, why did Yau Wai-ching bring up the Canadian soldiers? My guess is that there is a projection of the plight of Leung-Yau to the situation of the Canucks. Here are the similarities:

(1) they are young
(2) they are inexperienced
(3) they are ill-equipped
(4) once the battle began, their nominal supporters deserted them

- Here is where the similarities end. The difference starts with Yau Wai-ching's famous oath of office. To match this, the Canadians will have to say something like the Japanese Imperial Army will never be able to cross Shenzhen River because their legs are too short.

... and when the Japanese charge across the border and kick ass, the Canadians wondered why the Japanese are so upset? Could it be they misunderstood the Ontario accent of the Canadians?

- If the Canadians (The Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles of Canada) were so awesome, then what about The Middlesex Regiment? The 75h Rajput Regiment and the 14th Punjab Regiment? Or, the Hong Kong localists in the form of the Hong Kong Chinese Regiment and the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps?

- This is getting to be like an Academy Awards speech in which you must thank everyone in your life.

- According to history as told by Yau Wai-ching, the young, inexperienced and under-equipped Canadians successfully defended Wong Nai Chung Gap so that Hong Kong held on for almost 30 days, buying invaluable time for the British to set up the defense of Malaysia/Singapore.

(Wikipedia) Wong Nai Chung Gap.

The Battle of Wong Nai Chung Gap was the largest sustainment of casualties in a single day, on both sides, in the whole conflict. And, its subsequent capture by the Japanese effectively led to the downfall of Hong Kong Island, splitting the forces there in two (Separating East/West Brigades). At the time of this Battle, the Wong Nai Chung Gap area included defenders of the Middlesex Regiment, The Winnipeg Grenadiers and the HKVDC. Brigadier Lawson was present at the HQ and involved in the Battle.

On December 18th, the Japanese had landed around present day Taikoo and had made advances into the North Point area. They moved up towards Wong Nai Chung Gap from Braemar Hill through the primary use of Sir Cecil's Ride, but also through Wanchai and Happy Valley.

Primary engagements occurred around the area of Jardine’s Catch-water, where there were two pillboxes manned mainly by Middlesex Machine Gunners (JLO1/2). Royal Scots on Mount Nicholson also became engaged in fighting the Japanese advance units on the adjacent Jardine's lookout, but also those coming up Happy Valley/Wanchai area.

The superior Japanese force soon closed in on the West Brigade HQ, before the staff and other units could be evacuated. The conflict ensued for a long period, with defenders holding out and inflicting heavy casualties through the use of heavy machine gun fire. The defenders were surrounded and pinned down, with few units able to get through to relieve them. The defense finally deteriorated after nearly every defender was either killed or wounded. Even Brigadier Lawson made a call to Fortress HQ, saying he was going outside to ‘fight it out’ and was killed in action. Few stragglers managed to escape and the remainder of the soldiers (almost all wounded) were taken prisoner.

The Japanese held the position against a number of counterattacks, and were able to effectively split the Commonwealth forces in Hong Kong Island. This was key factor that led to the downfall of the colony on the 25th December Surrender.

(WWII Database)

December 19, 1941

Japanese troops reached the Wong Nai Chung Gap in central Hong Kong island where they were held by Canadian and colonial Chinese troops.

December 20, 1941

After holding off the Japanese troops at Wong Nai Chung Gap in central Hong Kong island for a day, Canadian and colonial Chinese troops begin falling back suffering heavy casualties.

December 21, 1941

While Canadian and colonial Chinese troops completed the withdraw from Wong Nai Chung Gap in central Hong Kong island, order began to crumble as panic built up rapidly.

December 23, 1941

Allied troops in Hong Kong withdrew to the final line, "The Ridge", at the Stanley Peninsula.

December 24, 1941

Japanese troops penetrated the final Allied defensive line, "The Ridge", at the Stanley Peninsula on Hong Kong island. At St. Stephen's College Emergency Hospital, 56 wounded soldiers, doctors, and nurses were bayoneted while a number of female civilians were raped.

December 25, 1941

British Governor of Hong Kong Sir Mark Young and Commander of British Forces in Hong Kong General Maltby ordered the surrender of the colony at 1515 hours, which was signed shortly after at the Japanese field headquarters at the Peninsula Hong Kong hotel by Young.

In what way, shape or form is this consistent with Yau Wai-ching's account? The Canadians helped by local Chinese forces held Wong Nai Chung Gap for two days only and Hong Kong fell in 17 days.

- Yau wrote a letter to the United Kingdom government and got ignored.

Yau wrote a letter to President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan, and she withdrew the letter herself. Tsai said that she would give it to someone to study and ponder.

Today, she is trying to ingratiate herself with Canada. It is unlikely to generate much interest.

Which other countries are left to ingratiate herself on? The United States? Japan? Australia? What letters can Yau Wai-ching write, given her illustrious history of bungling up?

The United States: Yau Wai-ching will write a letter to President-elect Donald Trump that compares to the quest for Hong Kong independence to the quest for Puerto Rican independence. (reference: SCMP March 8, 2017)

Japan: Yau Wai-ching will wrote a letter to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to thank the Japanese Imperial Army for letting Hong Kong live the only three years eight months (December 1941 to August 1945) of freedom and prosperity. In 1941, the population of Hong Kong was 1,600,000; in 1945 the population was 500,000. For the only time in its history, Hong Kong did not have a housing problem because most of the inhabitants were either massacred, directly expelled or indirectly forced out by mass starvation. Any young people left had plenty of space to fuck.

Australia: Yau Wai-ching will write a letter to Australian Governor-General Peter Cosgrove that compares Papua-New Guinea independence to Hong Kong independence, and the Bougainville revolt to the Mong Kok Fishball Riot.

- Yau Wai-ching is guilty of white racism, because she thinks that only the white Brits and Canucks contribute to the defense of Hong Kong. There were 4,000 Indian soldiers in the Hong Kong garrison compared to the 2,000 Canadians. What is the obligation of the Indians to Hong Kong, but for the fact that they were ordered here by their British masters? Why should they die to defend Hong Kong?

- What is any history of the Battle of Hong Kong and the subsequence Occupation period without the mention of the Dongjiang (East River) Guerilla Brigade? (Wikipedia)

Originally formed by Zeng Sheng (曾生) in Guangdong in 1939, this group was composed mostly of peasants, students, and seamen.[2] When the war reached Hong Kong in 1941, the guerrilla force grew from 200 to more than 6,000 soldiers.[2] In January 1942, the Guangdong people's anti-Japanese east river guerrillas (廣東人民抗日游擊隊東江縱隊) was established to reinforce anti-Japanese forces in Dongjiang and Zhujiang Pearl River deltas. The guerillas' most significant contribution to the Allies, in particular, was their rescue of twenty American pilots who parachuted into Kowloon when their planes were shot down by the Japanese.

In the wake of the British retreat, the guerillas picked up abandoned weapons and established bases in the New Territories and Kowloon. Applying the tactics of guerrilla warfare, they killed Chinese traitors and collaborators. They protected traders in Kowloon and Guangzhou, attacked the police station at Tai Po, and bombed Kai Tak Airport. During the Japanese occupation the only fortified resistance was mounted by the East river guerillas.

- For the young people of Hong Kong, the greatest moment of heroic resistance to Japan Occupation must be Ip Mon fighting as one man against ten Japanese soldiers. This episode must surely be incorporated into the the Glorious History of Valiant Resistance in Hong Kong for Year Five Secondary School to prepare young people to enter society.

- One Hongkonger is worth ten Chinamen. The People's Liberation Army has 2 million soldiers. So the Hong Kong National Army only needs 200,000 people to match the PLA mano a mano and we shall prevail.

- Eh, firstly, the one versus ten scene was fictional, so please do not get your hopes too high. Next, you should note that Ip Man is a native of Foshan city, Guangdong province, China. So he is not a member of your Hong Kong race. Finally, the actor who plays Ip Mon in this movie is Donnie Yen. He was born on July 27, 1963 in Guangzhou city, Guangdong province, China. So he is not a member of your Hong Kong race either.

- What is Yau Wai-ching using her history lesson to divert our attention from? Clearly she doesn't want us to notice that she hasn't given us taxpayers back her salary and operating funds!

- (Ta Kung Pao) January 5, 2017.

On Christmas Day, about 20 men dressed in khaki military uniforms with the letters HKVD, black military boots and dark green helmets stood at attention outside the Wanchai subway station. About 10 guides handed out Watershed Hong Kong business cards and explained to the public that they are here to explain the glorious history of the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps during the Battle of Hong Kong.

According to organizer Kevin, participants were recruited over the Watershed Hong Kong website and they each pay $2,600 to purchase the uniforms. Kevin said: "Before 1997, the British colonial government did not mention the HKVD possibly because they don't want to encourage localist sentiments. The government now does not respect history. The HKVD are a genuine Hong Kong army, a localist army. We want to revive localist history."

According to the guide who gave his name as Cow, the Battle of Hong Kong was almost completely fought by local-born, yellow-skinned Hongkongers. What about the Dongjiang Guerilla Brigade? Cow said definitely that the files of the United Kingdom and Japan contained no information about the Dongjiang Guerilla Brigade. Cow said that the HKVD was a regular army under British command whereas the Dongjiang Guerilla Brigade is an irregular guerilla force which never fought the Japanese army directly. "The Dongjiang Guerilla Brigade did not really operate in Hong Kong. Most of the time they were in mainland China. Guerillas? It meant that they ambush a Japanese soldier here and there." So who was more important during the War of Resistance Against Japan? The HKVD or the DJB? Cow did not respond directly; instead he asked, "Which is more important? A regular army that fought the Japanese army directly? Or a band of guerillas that specializes in ambushes?"

According to Lingnan University Department of History coordinator, Hong Kong & South China Historical Research Programme associate professor Lau Chi-pang, the mainstay of the Hong Kong British army was British, Canadians and Indians, with a small number of Chinese. The HKVDC was a civic reserve force. "The HKVDC is not an army. Why are they being called a localist army now? What is a localist army?"

- On one hand, Yau Wai-ching said that the Canadians were the ones who defended Hong Kong while everybody else sat around. On the other hand, Watershed Hong Kong said that the HKVD were the ones who defended Hong Kong while everybody else sat around. What is the truth?

- (Royal Hong Kong Regiment)

1941 - Hong Kong captured by the Japanese
The volunteers, renamed the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps, met their severest test in the bitter fighting that took place in the crucial weeks before the fall of Hong Kong on Christmas Day. Out of the mobilised strength of 2200 of all ranks, 289 were listed either as missing or killed, and many others became prisoners of war. Some, however, made their way into China where the British Army Aid Group was formed to assist the Chinese Government in the struggle against the Japanese. A further group made its way to Burma where it joined the famed Chindits under General Orde Wingate. The services of the defence corps were later recognised by the award of 19 decorations and 18 mentions in despatches for gallantry and good service.

- After the fall of Hong Kong, some members of the HKVDC made their away into China to assist the Chinese Government in the struggle against the Japanese? That is not very "Hong Kong localist" behavior? Why didn't they stay in Hong Kong and defend their homeland?

- (Hong Kong War Diary) Please take a look at the names of the Hong Kong-born yellow-skinned localist HKVDC members. With due respect, the majority were British Empire citizens serving as military reservists. They hold normal jobs (such as university professors, trading company managers, etc) but join the military reserve corps as duty to the British Empire.

- Ta Kung Pao said: "According to the guide who gave his name as Cow (in English), the Battle of Hong Kong was almost completely fought by local-born, yellow-skinned Hongkongers."

(Hong Kong Free Press) January 5, 2017. Watershed co-founder Taurus Yip said that the guides at their event mentioned that “all defence units, including Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corp, fought in the Battle of Hong Kong, 1941” and information cards were given to the audience for them to have a clear general understanding.

Now the discrepancy came because either the guide Cow was not fully briefed or else Ta Kung Pao lied. Can you ask Taurus Yip about this guide named Cow? But Taurus means Cow (Bull), so this is the same person. You can ask, but you will only get bullshit.

(SCMP) December 23, 2016

Two co-founders of the Occupy Central democracy movement have launched a campaign to raise at least HK$5 million in legal fees for four pro-democracy lawmakers whom the Hong Kong government is seeking to unseat through a judicial battle.

Edward Yiu Chung-yim, one of the four, revealed he had written to the Legislative Council’s secretariat, asking the legislature to pay their legal fees, which could amount to millions of dollars. But the Legco Commission, dominated by pro-establishment lawmakers, is unlikely to accept his request when they discuss it on January 16. The other three lawmakers caught in the legal battle are Lau Siu-lai, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung.

Chan Kin-man said on Thursday he was setting up the Justice Defence Fund with another Occupy co-founder, the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, and a former secretary general of the Civic Party, Joseph Cheng Yu-shek, to raise funds for the four. “The challenge of their status launched by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying is a violation of the authority of Legco,” Chan, a sociologist at Chinese University, said. “While the C.Y. Leung administration is supported by public funds, the four legislators will have to bear the costs themselves. If they lose their cases, they may become bankrupt … the asymmetry of the legal battle constitutes an injustice.”

Chan said street booths would be set up during the Civil and Human Rights Front’s march on New Year’s Day to collect donations, while Cheng revealed that groups such as the Democratic Party, Labour Party and Civic Party were likely to transfer donations they received that day. Chan said they would also accept donations via crowdfunding on the internet and from professionals and businessmen.

Asked if he was confident that their campaign would do better than that of the Youngspiration duo, Chan said: “A lot of residents are angry about the legal battle against the four, so I have some confidence that our campaign will do slightly better. It is a challenging task.” He added that if they exceeded their target and the Youngspiration pair asked for help, the fund would not rule out the possibility of helping them.

(Hong Kong Free Press) December 22, 2016.

Three pro-democracy activists established a fund on Thursday to raise money for four lawmakers who are facing judicial reviews lodged by the government over the oaths of allegiance they took as lawmakers.

The Justice Defense Fund was set up by Occupy co-founder Chan Kin-man, Reverend Chu Yiu-ming, and convener of the pro-democracy political group Power for Democracy Joseph Yu Shek-cheng as trustees. It is aimed at helping the embattled politicians cover legal costs.

“As two of the legislators are teachers and one of them still a student, the fund has secured the help of the Professional Teachers’ Union in setting up a bank account for the collection of donations,” a statement by the Demosistō party read.

Justice Defence Fund
Funding Litigation against Government’s Challenge of Legislators Status

Today, Professor Joseph Yu-shek Cheng, Rev. Chu Yiu-ming and Professor Chan Kin-man announce the establishment of the Justice Defence Fund to raise money for the legal defence of the four Legislative Councillors – Lau Siu-lai, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Edward Yiu Chung-yim and Leung Kwok-hung – who now face judicial review regarding their status as members of the Legislative Council.

Spokesman of the Fund, Professor Chan Kin-man, points out that as the oaths of the four legislators had been accepted by the President of the Legislative Council as effective and they have been serving as Legislative Councillors for a period of time, the challenge of their status launched by the Chief Executive is a violation of the authority of the Legislative Council, an interference against its functioning, and a political harassment of the legislators concerned.

Court proceedings concerned are costly and may easily amount to millions of Hong Kong dollars. While the C.Y. Leung administration is supported by public funds, the four legislators will have to bear the costs themselves. If they lose the cases, they may become bankrupt because of the heavy court expenditures incurred by both the administration as well as the defence. “The asymmetry of the legal battles constitute an injustice, and may easily become an instrument for the government to suppress political dissidence. We the trustees therefore appeal to the community for financial support.”

The Fund will collect donations through street appeals, crowd-funding on the Internet and approaches to well-off individuals. The protest rally on New Year’s Day will be an important occasion for fund-raising. “We appeal for the generous support of Hong Kong people to ‘Defend Justice, Confront DQ’ with civic power.”

As the anticipated need for funding is substantial, the trustees of the Fund have to be cautious in meeting this severe challenge. The Fund will initially limit itself to pay for the expenditure incurred in the judicial review processes of the four legislators. Any surplus money will then be used in support of other court cases arising from political activities.

As two of the legislators are teachers and one of them still a student, the Fund has secured the help of the Professional Teachers’ Union in setting up a bank account for the collection of donations. In offering this service, the Professional Teachers’ Union would like to show its commitment in providing assistance and legal counselling to those who suffer political persecution.

Bank: Hang Seng Bank
Bank Account No.: 788-006039-001
Bank Account Holder: Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union

Trustees of the Justice Defence Fund:
Professor Joseph Yu-shek Cheng
Rev. Chu Yiu-ming
Professor Chan Kin-man

With a target of raising HK$5 million in the first stage, the fund will collect donations through street appeals, online crowdfunding and help from individuals. If there is any leftover money after the case closes, it will be used to help people who face legal action due over political reasons, sociology professor Chan Kin-man said.

“Court proceedings are costly and may easily amount to the millions of Hong Kong dollars. While the CY Leung administration is supported by public funds, the four legislators will have to bear the costs themselves,” he added. “The asymmetry of the legal battle constitutes an injustice, and may easily become an instrument for the government to suppress political dissidence.”

Nathan Law Kwun-chung, one of the four members to be challenged in court, said the fund is also about defending the Legislative Council. Pro-democratic legislators have traditionally used the oath-taking ceremony as a means of protest, but never before have there been such repercussions.

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) December 22, 2016.

The precedent was set with Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching who lost their case at the High Court of Appeal. Under Common Law, that precedent means that there is a high likelihood that Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai, Leung Kwok-hung and Yiu Chung-yim will lose as well.

Nevertheless they cannot just give up, so fight they must. This means that they need to have money to pay the legal bills. They have applied for legal aid. They also want the public to donate to their cause. So they got Joseph Cheng, Chu Yiu-ming and Chan Kin-man to form a Justice Defence Fund. The initial goal is to raise $5,000,000 to pay for the legal bills of the DQ4.

The Fund intends to solicit donations at the New Year's Day and July 1st demonstration marches each year. It is possible that all donations from citizens to all political parties and organizations will be compulsorily handed over to the Justice Defence Fund. The use of money at the Fund will be decided only by Joseph Cheng, Chu Yiu-ming and Chan Kin-man. Who can apply? Unknown. What form will the support take? Unknown. But they said that even Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching can apply. Yes, but will Leung-Yau get help? Unknown. Everything is whatever Cheng, Chiu and Chan say.

- Nobody made the DQ4 do what they did during their oaths of office. It was their own choice. Now that the conflagration is upon their heads, they want the citizens to foot their bills.

- In order to get the citizens to part with their hard-earned money, you need to create a sense of urgency. Democracy/freedom/human rights/justice/rule-of-law/universal suffrage are under attack! The Chinese Communists are at the door! Unfortunately it is very hard to equate Lau Siu-lai's 10-minute oath of office with Defending Justice. Nowhere in the civilized world is this acceptable behavior for an oath of office.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) "Pro-democratic legislators have traditionally used the oath-taking ceremony as a means of protest, but never before have there been such repercussions."

Never in the history of mankind/womankind (in Hong Kong and elsewhere) has an oath of office been taken in the manner of Lau Siu-lai. This is why no such repercussions have occurred before. Over the years, there were minor infractions and shenanigans. But this time, they had to outperform each other and some of them went too far.

- Do the DQ4 need money so badly? Let's look at their separate cases.

Nathan Law Kwun-chung:

- Currently an undergraduate student of Cultural Studies at Lingnan University. This means that he is indigent.

- Currently resides in public housing in Tung Chung, New Territories. This means that he is indigent.

- Current salary as Legislative Councilor is $95,180 per month. According to the HKSAR Census and Statistics Department, the median monthly employment earnings amount for men 20-29 is $13,000 and for all persons age 15+ is $14,500. This means that he is comparatively very highly paid.

- Current assets at hand include the full amount of $834,393 in operating funds for four years already advanced by the Legislative Council. This means that he has a lot of cash on hand.

- Election Donations: He raised $1,161,052.92 and spent $1,161,052.92. The biggest donor is Chung Chi Limited, which donated $880,967.02 in cash, $3,060 in services and $151,802 in goods and merchandise.

- (#492) In March 2016, Scholarism ceased to exist. Of the $1.45 million in previous donations still held by Scholarism, $700,000 was to be transferred to a new student group which did not come into being and the other $750,000 was to be transferred to a fund for legal assistance which did not come into being either. This means that it would be logical for the fund for legal assistance to be used to assist Nathan Law to defend justice.

- Has applied for legal aid to defend against the judicial review filed by the government.

Lau Siu-lai:

- Currently a sociology lecturer at Hong Kong Community College of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. This means that she derives a decent income from her teaching.

- Current salary as Legislative Councilor is $95,180 per month. During her election campaign, she promised to donate half her salary to senior citizens if elected.

- Land and Property Declarations: Owns one property in Kowloon and one property in New Territories. This means that she is a very rich landlady.

- Election Donations: She raised $1,181,001.40 in donations and spent $1,179,001.40. Her biggest donor was Albert Cheng King-hom at $170,988.

- Has applied for legal aid to defend against the judicial review filed by the government.

Leung Kwok-hung:

- Currently resides in public housing apartment in Kai Yip Estate, Kowloon Bay district.

- Current salary as Legislative Councilor is $95,180 per month. This exceeds the upper limit for monthly earnings for entitlement to public housing by a lot. However, he claims that his total assets are under the upper limit for assets. He has been a Legislative Councilor since 2004 and his total earnings over the years total more than $10,000,000.

- Election Donations/Financial Sponsorship: None.

- Who knows if there is more of this? (SCMP) June 23, 2016. High-profile lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung will appear in court on Friday morning following his arrest by graft-busters over an undeclared HK$250,000 payment from media tycoon Jimmy Lai Chee-ying. Leung was later charged with one count of misconduct in public office and released on bail. In a statement on Thursday, the ICAC accused Leung of misconduct for “failing to declare or disclose” a HK$250,000 payment he received from Lai through Mark Simon on May 22, 2012. The charge also accuses Leung of “concealing” the acceptance of the money from the Legislative Council.

- Has applied for legal aid to defend against the judicial review filed by the government.

Edward Yiu Chung-yim:

- Part-time jobs as guest speaker at the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, City University, and columnist of the Hong Kong Economic Journal Monthly.

- Land and Property Declarations: A self-occupied property on Hong Kong Island.

- Election Donations: $27,080.

- Has applied for legal aid to defend against the judicial review filed by the government.

- Has written to Legislative Council president Andrew Leung to ask the Legislative Council to pay for his defense against the judicial review. He argued that the Legislative Council was willing to bear Andrew Leung's legal fees in the judicial review, so it should also bear theirs.

None of the DQ4 are truly indigent. But all politicians need an issue to arouse the emotions of the citizens to part with their hard-earned money. What will happen to that money? The DQ4 won't spend it like Leung/Yau on expensive wine and clothing. They will spend the money for the purposes of raising even more money. Raising money is an end in itself; it is the sole measure of success.

- If you believe that the money pool is finite, then you can only raise more money by increasing your share at the expense of your competitors. This is achieved by finding an issue that strikes an emotional chord with the potential donors. The DQ4 believe that they have got a winner of an issue here, so they are going out hard.

But the pool may also be elastic. Under normal circumstances, the pool is of a certain size. Under an emergency situation, the pool of donors/donations may expand by a lot. The DQ4 are trying to expand the pool by declaring an emergency.

- (Wen Wei Po) December 23, 2016. The Democratic Party has promised to give 10% of the New Year's Day donations to the organizer Civil Human Rights Front and 90% to the Justice Defence Fund. The Labour Party has some similar plan. The Civic Party will discuss this at their executive committee meeting next week, "but the reaction has been quite positive so far."

- (Wen Wei Po) December 23, 2016. If the DQ4 asked for money directly and some super-funder gave them millions, the donation would have to reported and the identity of the super-funder will be made known. By establishing a Justice Defence Fund, the super-funder could give millions to the Fund without disclosing his identity, and the money can be legitimately funneled from the Fund to the DQ4 and reported as coming from the FUnd. So this whole act was devised to protect the super-funder(s).

- Cartoon

Panel 1: Have pity on us, we have no money for our legal case ...
Panel 2: What a coincidence! I was going to deposit your monthly salary at your bank on behalf of the Legco Secretariat.
Panel 3: Since you are in such dire straits, why don't I donate your salary to the Fund? STOP!
Panel 4: This is this, and that is that. We are going to pocket our salaries ourselves. Do not put it into the tin cup!

- Each legislator earns $95,180 per month. If they donate one year's of their salary each, that would be $95,180 x 12 x 4 = $4,578,640 already. Surely this is putting the money to good use in defense of the inalienable right of Lai Siu-lai and every other citizen to take an oath/vow with six seconds between words.

- (Speakout HK) By Fung Wai-kwong. December 24, 2016.

Chan Kin-man was one of the three founders of Occupy Central. He is now starting the Justice Defence Fund on behalf of four legislators who are facing disqualification due to a judicial review by the government. What do we know about Chan Kin-man?

On March 9, 2014, the website of Occupy Central with Love and Peace published this: "The first Occupy Central with Love and Peace financial statement covering the period from the start in March 2013 to June 30, 2014 will be published after being audited by a certified accountant." Today is December 24, 2016. We have not seen any such audited financial statement. What is the problem? Maybe they couldn't identify the donors or the amounts? Maybe some money went missing? Maybe some money was spent on things that couldn't be acknowledged? We don't know. But what kind of political honesty is this? Chan Kin-man still owes us an explanation.

On January 16, 2013, Benny Lai announced Occupy Central. Chan Kin-man joined in later. They went through deliberations and rehearsals for more than a year. On the early morning of September 28, 2014, Benny Tai announced that Occupy Central has begun. On October 28, 2014, exactly 31 days later, Benny Tai and Chan Kin-man announced that they will return to their respective university posts and continue teaching. They leave behind the other citizens who were still occupy the streets. Eventually Occupy Central ended after 79 days. They started a mass action, and they left before it was even half way over. What kind of political trustworthiness is this?

Chan Kin-man hasn't been explained what happened before yet. Today he comes out and wants the citizens to give him another $5,000,000. Isn't there someone more trustworthy out there for the citizens to choose?

- (Bastille Post) December 29, 2016.

The Civil Human Rights Front has called for a New Year's Day demonstration march to demand the Secretary for Justice to withdraw the judicial review to disqualify the four Legislative Councilors Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai, Leung Kwok-hung and Yiu Chung-yim. The Front said that the Department of Justice used public money to file the judicial review in order to interfere with the results of the Legislative Council elections. Therefore, this was political persecution. The Front said that the event is a demonstration of opposition to the actions of the Secretary for Justice, and not intended to apply public opinion pressure on the court.

Yes, politicians can offer their ideas to the government or anyone else. But the present case has gone into the judicial process with a court date being scheduled already. So it should be up to the court to decide. This is not the time to hold a demonstration to express a political demand. It was also wrong for HKU associate professor Benny Tai to offer 300 pan-democratic nominations to anyone who promises to withdraw the judicial review if elected as Chief Executive.

The people of Hong Kong say that they value rule-of-law. They should not allow politics to destroy rule-of-law. When a case is pending in court, it should be left to the court to decide.

(Foreign Policy) Global Thinkers of 2016: The Challengers

Internet comments:

- Foreign Policy's notable fact about Nathan Law: "Law has limited familiarity with legislative politics, but he does have experience in student governance. After the 2014 protests, he was elected secretary-general of the Hong Kong Federation of Students."'

The Hong Kong Federation of Students consists of the student unions from the eight universities (Hong Kong University; Chinese University of Hong Kong; Hong Kong University of Science and Technology; Hong Kong Polytechnic University; City University of Hong Kong; Hong Kong Baptist University; Lingnan University; Education University of Hong Kong). Under the inspiring leadership/stewardship of secretary-general Nathan Law, students at four out of the eight universities voted by referenda to disaffiliate with the Hong Kong Federation of Students. Today, the Hong Kong Federation of Students is defunct for all purposes, except for the urgent question of the disposition of $20 million collected from student dues over the years.

- Does your organization need someone to run it into the ground? If so, Nathan Law is your man.

- Foreign Policy's notable fact about Nathan Law: "When he was 6 years old, Law moved from Shenzhen to Hong Kong." Nathan Law is the embodiment of the Cantonese saying: 過橋抽板 ("To pull the plank after crossing the bridge"). Once Law moved from Shenzhen to Hong Kong, he wants to stop the flow of mainland Chinese immigrants to Hong Kong because it may dilute democracy/freedom/human rights/rule of law/universal suffrage in Hong Kong. Or some other such great thought from our great thinker.

- Nathan Law told TIME: "People have put their trust in me, and now I have to perform. We hope that we can bring the issue of Hong Kong's future to the parliamentary table. That's completely different to protesting."

Nathan Law began his performance this way: (Hong Kong Free Press with video) October 12, 2016.

Incoming lawmaker Nathan Law, who was last to take his oath at the first meeting of the legislative term on Wednesday, delivered a protest speech before clashing with the legislature’s secretary-general.

Law, the youngest lawmaker elected in September’s election, said: “This sacred ceremony has become a tool of the authorities trying to suppress public opinion under absolute authority and regulations.” Quoting Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi, Law continued in English: “You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” “Today I must complete the necessary procedures, but it doesn’t mean I will bend and bow to absolute authority,” he continued. “I will never bear allegiance to the powers that be, that kill the people. I will stand by my principles and use my conscience to defend Hong Kong.”

He finished his speech by yelling: “Hope lies with the people, change comes with resistance and struggle” before taking his oath.

Law expressed his Demosistō party’s message of self-determination, adding afterwards: “Power returns to the people. Absolute and autocratic powers will not live forever. There should be democratic self determination and there will be continuous struggle.”

Following this statement, Law then asked Legislative Council Secretary General Kenneth Chen what authority he had to decide that three members’ oaths were ineffective, thus barring them from voting for a Legislative Council President. The election for president is set to take place on Wednesday afternoon. In response, Chen replied that the oath taking had concluded and asked Law to return to his seat. Law refused to return to his seat before Chen answered his question about whether the three members can take part in the election. Chen then adjourned the meeting.

As a result of this performance, the status of Nathan Law as Legislative Councilor became the subject of a judicial review. If the court rules against Nathan Law, he will have to cough up his salary plus operating funds.

- What was our Great Thinker thinking when he gave the great performance at the oath of office?

- Our Great Thinker had a great idea: as soon as the Legislative Council session began, he immediately filed to claim the entire allowance of $840,000+ in operating funds. So if he ever loses his position, they will have to fight to get a cent back from him. His money has been converted to cash which is stashed away underneath his pillow (or something), and his bank account has been drawn down to near zero.

- The money may belong to the people who paid their taxes, but our Great Thinker thinks that he is keeping the money in the name of freedom/democracy/human rights/justice/rule-of-law/Hong Kong core values.

- Demosisto chairman Nathan Law is a financial wizard and an astrophysicist. When Demosisto was formed with Scholarism members Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow, Oscar Lai and others, they promised that the Scholarism funds would be transferred to a new student organization. Since this new student organization never came into being, the funds have fallen beyond the event horizon of a mysterious black hole.

 - What does our Great Thinker think about normally?

(HKG Pao) Nathan Law has three primary duties that he must discharge. Firstly, he is a Legislative Councilor who has to attend meetings, read reports/correspondence, assist his constituents, etc. Secondly, he is still registered as a student at Lingnan University and he must attend class, read textbooks, do homework, take tests, etc. Thirdly, he must perform community service as required under the conviction of inciting others to participate in an unlawful assembly. How is he coping? Nathan Law said that he is frequently very tired from his duties. How is his school homework? He said with a laugh: "I don't want to talk about it!"

- Nathan Law is an inspirational story of success. How can a sixth-year undergraduate at the seventh ranked university in Hong Kong become a Top 100 Global Thinker? This is even a better story than the Horace Alger myth.

- Irrespective of how busy his schedule is, he still found the time to sing. Isn't he just so awesome?

- The lyrics of the first song was written by Wang Dan, the Chinese student leader now in exile. Wang said that Nathan Law sings even better than Wang can. This does not mean that Law sings well; it only means that Wang really sucks.

- Here is a collection of great thoughts from our great Global Thinker:

Silent Majority HK video, Part 1

[Oath of office]

Recap of Nathan Law's extraordinary performance of the oath of office.

[Home Visit Cards given to pan-democrats]

Nathan Law: "If they give the Home Visit Card back to the pan-democratic legislators as a sign of peace, then I feel that it is like as if they use sticks to beat you for ten rounds and then they give you a piece of band aid.

Choi Yiu-cheung (Democratic Party): They just gave us back our ID document. You cannot see any other Customs officer come over to take any action.

Forum speaker: I want to ask Nathan Law. You tried to go to Beijing back then to voice your demands. They are now giving you another chance to make your voice heard.

Nathan Law: I think that the important point is in ... the important point is in ... eh ...

Silent Majority HK video, Part 2

[Education]

Nathan Law: We see the factory-style of education in elementary and secondary schools today. Actually, students with varying different talents and abilities are placed in a mould and every one of them comes out in the same shape. They only know how to come up with the standard answers.

Nathan Law (as an example of a standard student who came out of the Hong Kong elementary/secondary school system): "We now have a big table [in the Legislative Councilor's office] to play some games. We are going to play Monopoly and so on."

Legislative Councilor Eddie Chu Hoi Dick: "Table games. It seems to have a deep meaning, but let us not delve into it."

[School curriculum]

Nathan Law: Who is responsible for revising the school curriculum? The government has never published any information about how the committee was formed.

Discussant 1: The committee has been working over all these years. They are education experts, such as Chinese history teachers, etc. It is not just a group of legislative councilors.

Discussant 2: The school curriculum development committee is a government consultative group. They have formed a special committee which focuses on the revision of the Chinese history teaching. There is a list of items.

Nathan Law: There is a list of items. Yes. But of course nobody knows the details.

Discussant 1: Is that why you make noise? [The information is all out there, but if you don't want to find out, you won't find out. As the saying goes, you can't wake someone up if he is determined to pretend to be asleep.]

- (Speakout HK @ YouTube) How did the Nathan Law react to the news of the judicial review against the DQ4? "I hope that the citizens can join us in not being afraid. Let us together face this battle that is initiated by CY Leung." Eh, why are the citizens of Hong Kong afraid? What are they afraid of? Did CY Leung make the four of you fool around with your oaths of office?

- Ceci n'est pas une pipe. This is not a Thinker because a Blockhead does not think.

- (Kinliu) December 19, 2016. By Chris Wat Wing-yin.

With respect to the offer to give Home Visit Cards for pan-democrats to visit mainland China, the youngest Legislative Councilor Nathan Law said: "I think that it is very dangerous to go back to the mainland at this time. Even if I have a card, I wouldn't go back ..." A 23-year-old man has shut the door on himself.

Today many Hong Kong companies have business dealings with mainland China, and their employees travel back and forth. Every country in the world does business with mainland China, and their citizens travel back and forth. Nathan Law must have gone down to Causeway Bay and Mong Kok too many times, and watched too many of those Falun Gong shows on organ extraction. Thus he believes that it is dangerous to go to the mainland, because you can be sent to prison and never heard from again, or you can have all your vital organs stolen.

If such was the case, then people like me who visit the mainland frequently must have had almost all of our vital organs stolen already.

Tragically, this young man had not only slammed the front door shut but also locked the back door. He came with his mother from Shenzhen to Hong Kong at age 6. He became a permanent resident of Hong Kong seven years later at age 13. His past began in mainland China. Today, he does not dare and he does not want to go to mainland China. He has completely uprooted himself, erasing all his memories. If he should ever change his mind some day, a lot of time would have been lost already.

- (HKG Pao) April 8, 2017.

Membership at Demosisto is by invitation only. They do not accept applications from the outside. There are only 25 members. When they hold elections, the winner is the candidate who wins more than half of the votes from those members present.

For the year 2016-2017, Nathan Law was re-elected chairman. Joshua Wong was re-elected secretary-general, but he barely eked out a majority out of those present. Former deputy secretary-general Agnes Chow ran for re-election and lost to the unheralded Kwok Hei-yiu. Former vice-chairman Oscar Lai did not run for re-election. Derek Lam was the sole candidate for vice-chairman. Lam was unable to get the vote of confidence from those present. Therefore the vice-chairman will be elected at a later date.

- You invite a couple of dozen close friends to form a political party. When it came to the annual election, you get "no confidence" votes instead of automatic endorsements. What kind of global thinker are you?

- Under the great leadership of the great thinker Nathan Law, Demosisto held a community meeting on May 11, 2017 in Tin Wan area at the south of Hong Kong Island, with the theme being that the residents of Tin Wan have to fight for themselves. They posted an up-skirt photo of a small girl to show how to do this.

What, if anything, was Nathan Law thinking?

- Maybe Nathan Law was looking for publicity. If so, the Internet blowback against this piece of child pornography was HUMONGOUS!

(SCMP) December 21, 2016.

A co-founder of the Occupy protests in 2014 has been accused of an “immoral” plot by proposing that the pro-democracy camp backs a chief executive election candidate in return for a promise to scrap a lawsuit to unseat four of its lawmakers.

Ten lawyers, including four pro-establishment legislators, have written to the justice minister to complain that Benny Tai Yiu-ting, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong, risks perverting the course of justice, breaching the election law and committing contempt of court，– which they said could damage the city’s “stainless election system”.

Although the pro-democratic camp defended the professor, saying it was a far cry from breaking the law, it admitted the proposal had only received lukewarm attention.

Tai, who is a member of the 1,194-member Election Committee that will pick the next chief executive in March, proposed that since pan-democrats had won more than a quarter of seats on the committee, the camp should nominate a candidate “in return for his or her promise” to end outgoing Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying’s legal bid to disqualify Lau Siu-lai, Edward Yiu Chung-yim, Nathan Law Kwun-chung and “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung.

The four, the latest to be targeted for their controversial actions while taking their oaths as lawmakers, are expected to learn their fate in a court hearing in February.

Leung’s action follows his successful bid to disqualify two pro-independence lawmakers, Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang, who were deemed to have insulted China and made a mockery of their oaths.

Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong vice-chairman Horace Cheung Kwok-kwan, one of the four lawmakers who signed the letter, said on Wednesday: “This is an immoral political deal.”

He said what Tai suggested had nothing to do with public policies but was to fulfil some personal benefits.

Pan-democrats seized 326 of the seats on the committee – enough, pundits said, to give them a “king-making” role. Chief executive candidates must secure 150 votes to run and at least 601 to win. At the moment there are two candidates: New People’s Party lawmaker Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee and retired judge Woo Kwok-hing. But two other heavyweights – Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor and Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah, who resigned last week – are expected to join the race.

All lawmakers have a vote in the election.

Business and Professionals Alliance lawmaker Dr Priscilla Leung Mei-fun said she was “bewildered and worried” that a law professor would urge someone to “test the boundary of the law”.

DAB chairwoman Starry Lee Wai-king said she shared the concerns of her party’s members

But legislator Dennis Kwok, convenor of the Professionals Guild, which leads the pro-democratic fraction of the Election Committee, said Tai had only raised a demand many voters wanted, so there was nothing immoral or illegal about it.

Former Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing, who does not have a vote, called Tai’s idea “a bit strange”, but stopped short of calling it illegal.

Lawmaker Charles Mok said Tai’s proposal remained a personal idea that had not yet been much explored by Election Committee members.

The Occupy protests paralysed parts of the city for 79 days in 2014 as activists demanded universal suffrage to pick the chief executive in 2017.

Internet comments:

- (Wen Wei Po) December 22, 2016. Four crimes in Benny Tai's deal.

(1) CAP 554 Election (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance

Section 2: Interpretation

1) In this Ordinance, unless the context otherwise requires-

advantage (利益) means-

(a) any valuable consideration, gift or loan; or
(b) any office, employment or contract; or
(c) the full or partial payment, release, discharge or liquidation of an obligation; or
(d) the exercise of or forbearance from exercising a right or power; or
(e) the performance of or forbearance from performing a duty; or
(f) any favour, including-

(i) giving protection from a liability incurred or anticipated; and
(ii) giving protection from proceedings or possible proceedings of a disciplinary, civil or criminal nature;

or
(g) any other service (other than voluntary service or the provision of entertainment), but does not include an election donation if particulars of the donation are given in an election return that has been lodged with the appropriate authority;

Section 11: Corrupt conduct to bribe electors and others at elections

1(c) A person engages in corrupt conduct if the person, without reasonable excuse,

(c) offers an advantage to another person as an inducement to get, or try to get, a third person to vote at the election for a particular candidate or particular candidates;

3(b) For the purposes of this section,

(b) a person solicits an advantage if the person asks for, or shows a willingness to receive, an advantage, either for the person's own benefit or for the benefit of another person;

Section 6: What penalties can be imposed for corrupt conduct at elections?

(1) A person who engages in corrupt conduct at an election commits an offence and is-

(a) if tried summarily, liable on conviction to a fine of $200000 and to imprisonment for 3 years; or

(b) if tried on indictment, liable on conviction to a fine of $500000 and to imprisonment for 7 years.

(2) A person may be convicted of an offence of having engaged in corrupt conduct at an election if the person is found to have engaged in the conduct before, during or after the election period.

(2) Obstruction of the course of justice.

At issue is the advocacy that affects an ongoing court case, where in the plaintiff (Chief Executive) is being induced to abandon the case. Because the case was originally brought in the name of protecting the public's rights, this is obstruction of the course of justice. Common law does not prescribe penalties in such unique cases, so the presiding judge will have to decide based upon the severity of the situation.

(3) Contempt of court

Certain actions that interfere with the judiciary, including public speeches and articles, are considered contempt of court. Common law does not prescribe penalties in such unique cases, so the presiding judge/magistrate will have to decide based upon the severity of the situation.

(4) CAP 200 Crimes Ordinance

Section 159A: The offence of conspiracy

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part, if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either-

(a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement; or

(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible,

he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question.

- The most common form of corrupt/illegal conduct during elections is vote-buying. I pay you $amount X and you vote for me. Legislator Leung Mei-fun said that the Election (Corruption and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance also include certain favors, such as "giving protection from proceedings or possible proceedings of a disciplinary, civil or criminal nature." So this is no difference than offering money when you make the Chief Executive promise to withdraw the judicial review against the four legisators.

- (Wen Wei Po) Yesterday on radio, Benny Tai defended his "Devil's bargain." He said that it was not illegal for voters to issue political demands to candidates. As an example from the previous Chief Executive election, the Federation of Trade Unions listed the elimination of hedging of the Mandatory Provident Fund by employers as a condition for their votes. "If you want to investigate, you should start with the problem with the Federation of Trade Unions several years ago." However, Legislator Horace Cheung Kwok-kwan pointed out that Federation of Trade Unions is offering a condition related to public policy and interests. By contrast, Benny Tai's conditions refers to advantages that accrue only to four individuals.

- By extension of Benny Tai's logic, voters/electors cannot state any condition for their votes, including constructing more public housing units, eliminating the TSA exam, raising the minimum wage, imposing a maximum wage, implementing double universal suffrage, introducing universal retirement protection, etc.

- The Devil's Bargain is a trade between a buyer and a seller. The buyer says that he wants X in return for his vote, and the seller gives him X to get his vote. By extension of Benny Tai's logic, no candidate can issue any policy promise because that would be vote-buying. This will turn the Chief Executive election into a beauty pageant with no policy discussions being allowed. So who will be the next Chief Executive? Andy Lau? Leon Lai? Chow Yun-fat? Bosco Wong? Charmaine Sheh? Myolie Wu?

- (Wen Wei Po) Yesterday on radio, Benny Tai said that people have different reactions to his proposal, but he doesn't see anything illegal in it. He said that this was just one of many issues during the nomination phase of the Chief Executive election. "When a voter openly tells the candidates: 'I will give you my vote if you support this demand of mine' with no personal advantages being accrued, then I fail to see anything illegal or otherwise in violation of the Election Ordinance."

- Benny Tai is right. There are many policy promises to be made, such as:

(1) 200,000 public housing units to be built in the next five years
(2) the raising of the minimum wage
(3) the imposition of the maximum working hours
(4) the elimination of the Mandatory Provident Fund
(5) the reduction of the number of immigrants from mainland China
(6) the passage of Article 23 on national security
(7) universal suffrage for the election of the Chief Executive
(8) universal suffrage for the Legislative Council elections (that is, the elimination of the functional constituencies)
(9) the withdrawal of the judicial review against the four legislators
(10) the issuance of a television broadcast license to HKTV
(11) the investigation of CY Leung's UGL deal
(12) the investigation of CY Leung's interference with personnel decision at the ICAC
(13) the elimination of the TSA exam
(14) immediate stoppage of construction of the Hong Kong section of the High Speed Rail
(15) declare June 4th to be a national day of mourning in Hong Kong
(16) stopping the teaching of Chinese history in Hong Kong schools; introducing the discussion of Hong Kong independence in Hong Kong schools.
(17) banning all individual mainland visitors
(18) stopping further asylum petitions from Southeast Asians and Africans
(19) the institution of universal retirement protection
(20) the imposition of rent control
...

A candidate is going to state their positions on some (but not necessarily all) of these issues. The elector has to decide on which issues are the most important, and then vote for the candidate who seemed most consistent with his preferences. It is doubtful that there are any electors who would be oriented towards one and only issue.

- The Democracy 300+ actually numbers 327. Does every single one of them agree to put their votes for sale according to the price that Benny Tai puts on? If they don't agree to the deal, shouldn't they say so?

- (Wen Wei Po) While it would seem that the case of the DQ4 legislators is now in the hands of the Court of First Instance and therefore people should refrain from commenting, Benny Tai said, "The judicial review was brought up by the Secretary for Justice. The Secretary for Justice is exercising executive authority on behalf of the Chief Executive. As such, he can also be subjected to judicial review and/or political demands. This case is different from a criminal prosecution. Therefore I don't see any problems. I must remind that you should check the accuracy of any statement made about me."

- (Wen Wei Po) A Facebook petition has drawn more than 1,500 signatures in less than 72 hours. The petition is addressed to the Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung. However, the issue is not even about Benny Tai's current "Devil's Bargain." The main point was that they want Yuen to answer why Benny Tai has not been charged for starting the illegal Occupy Central in 2014. The event took place more than two years ago, and none of the several hundred arrestees have been charged.

- Why have charges not been filed yet? The petition noted: "Secretary Yuen, there is social talk that you and Benny Tai were fellow students, and therefore you are treating him leniently."

- Robert Chow's blog: Although the seven million people of Hong Kong do not have the right to vote for their Chief Executive because the pan-democrats chose to veto the constitutional reform bill, we still have our conscience, our sense of justice and our voices. What are we supposed to think about this?

Should the next Chief Executive be someone who cares only about winning the election and is therefore willing to sell out rule-of-law in Hong Kong in order to get 325 nomination votes? Does this person have almost 300 votes on hand already and then the additional 325 votes will mean the margin of victory?

Perhaps we should ask each and every candidate whether he/she is willing to sell out rule-of-law and Hong Kong for 325 votes?

Although we don't the right to vote ourselves, we have the right to state that we don't want such a person to be our leader whom we must call our Chief Executive.

- "If you are willing to promise not to prosecute these lawbreakers, these 300 plus nomination votes will be yours."

- (SCMP) Don’t waste your time on more fanciful voting schemes Benny, just stick to what you know. By Alex Lo. December 23, 2016.

The mind of Benny Tai Yiu-ting must be a bizarre place to inhabit. How else can you account for the weird, usually counterproductive, ideas that keep coming out of this associate law professor?

His latest is a proposal that pro-democracy members on the Election Committee should support a chief executive candidate who must promise to scrap a government lawsuit aimed at unseating four lawmakers over their alleged invalid oath-taking.

A group of lawyers, including several pro-establishment legislators, have written to the secretary for justice to complain that Tai’s plan risks perverting the course of justice, breaking election laws and committing contempt of court. They will complain to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the University of Hong Kong, Tai’s employer.

Hold your horses, people. Tai’s scheme is not so much “immoral” or illegal as ridiculous. On his Facebook page, he has lashed out at his critics by saying they are being ignorant because such horse trading is how political bargaining is done.

Really?

If he wants to help those four lawmakers by electing a chief executive who would drop the lawsuit, he is bound to fail. Pan-democrats hold about 326 seats on the 1,194-member committee. Another 10 to a dozen members may also share pan-democratic, anti-establishment sentiment. They have the numbers to pick a Beijing-friendly candidate they prefer for the top job; they have too few votes to make one of their own the next chief executive.

Perhaps Tai just wants to make the government lawsuit an election issue. But what makes him think he could mobilise the 320-plus pan-dems on the committee to do his bidding? Neither would any loyalist candidate dare take up Tai’s call, to avoid provoking Beijing’s ire.

Tai, in fact, has alienated many pan-democrats. His so-called ThunderGo polling scheme, which also involved the use of a strategic voting app, has been blamed for contributing to the defeat of several pan-dem candidates in the Legislative Council election in September. That might have paved the way for the more radical localists to win their Legco seats, leading to the subsequent oath-taking fiasco.

Even pan-democrats who have defended Tai are scratching their heads as to what he is up to. Professor Tai, try the most direct route. You are a legal expert. Why not offer your services free to those four poor lawmakers?

(Great Daily) December 18, 2016.

On October 7, 2016, Lung Ying-tai gave a talk at Hong Kong University. The subject of the talk was <A song, an era>. She said that a song is remembered for many decades because it represents the times, the histories, the memories and the solaces of all persons."

(YouTube 16:09) She asked the audience: "What is the first song of initiation/enlightenment/inspiration in your life? I have not forgotten. Alan Leong, what is your song? Which one?"

(16:18) Alan Leong said: "It should be Frank Sinatra's My Way."

(16:25) Lung said: "Really?" and she addressed another person: "Do you have one?"

(16:28) A middle-aged man (possibly Albert Chau Wai-lap, vice-president (Teaching and Learning) at the Hong Kong Baptist University) using Cantonese-accented putonghua responded: "When I entered university, a lot of older students taught us to sing My Motherland."

(16:35) Apparently taken aback, Lung asked: "Really? How do you sing My Motherland?  What is the first phrase?"

(16:40) Slowly and hesitantly at first, some members of the audience sang the first phrase "一条大河波浪宽" (A great river flows, its waves wide and calm).

(16:49) Then more people chimed in for the second phrase "風吹稻花香兩岸" (Wind blows through rice flowers, bearing fragrance to both shores).

(16:58) Then it became a mass chorus with the ensuing phrases:
我家就在岸上住 (My family lives right there by the water)
听惯了艄公的号子 (I am used to hearing the punters' call)
看惯了船上的白帆 (And seeing the white sails on the boats)

(17:18) Lung was suitably impressed and she asked everybody to applaud. "So wonderful!"

Internet comments:

- This is the biggest slap on the faces of the pro-independence/self-determination clique. All along, they said that the people of Hong Kong are a different (and superior) race from the people of mainland China. Now it turns out that a Hong Kong University audience spontaneously burst into singing the Chinese patriotic song My Motherland. It looks like they all knew the lyrics by heart.

- When Lung Ying-tai posed the question to the audience, she probably expected the most likely choice to be Beyond's <The Sea Is Wide, The Sky is Open>, which was sung repeatedly by the Occupy Central demonstrators (see, for example, CTV (Taiwan)'s news story). This event was held at Hong Kong University from whence the biggest backers of Occupy Central came! What she saw was just not what she expected at all.

- Blood runs thicker than blood.

- Of course, the big question is: What is wrong with this audience? This is an event that was opened to the community, so it is not a case that the audience was screened based upon patriotism. Instead this audience was self-selected. Lung Ying-tai is coming from Taiwan, and she is going to use putonghua to speak. That means the hardcore pro-independence/self-determination students will never come to listen to a speech given in the enemy's tongue. The audience there will be mostly mainland students, and older teachers and staff members.

- (Bastille Post) By Lo Wai-hung.

I was wistful when I watched this video, because it evoked my memories as a 15-year-old. It was 1977, then. I was on summer vacation in the third year of secondary school. I participated in a Chinese University of Hong Kong camp for secondary school students. A group of university tutors took us to the University Mall and taught us to sing <My Motherland>. As I watched the video, I can still remember the sound of <My Motherland>.

At that time, the student movement had ended. In 1976, Mao Zedong passed away. The truth of the Cultural Revolution was revealed, the Gang of Four were brought down and the students' simplistic views of Chinese politics were dashed. Yet these university students were still filled with patriotic fervor. At the time, they were the top 1% elite whose university credentials will guarantee that they have bright futures ahead. However, they still cared about the nation.

Perhaps I was influenced by this camp. Ultimately I too entered the Chinese University of Hong Kong. After I got in, I found out that the number of students who cared about the nation was very small. They were the minority among the elite, because the majority of students were very practical.

... We were Hongkongers who grew up in a British colony. We saw an unequal society in which the British were high on top. We want China to become strong. We want a strong, safe, democratic and free China. The thoughts of people are formed by history.

From today's angle, those university students who sang <My Motherland> will be classified as "Greater China retards." But I prefer to call them "intellectuals."

- The event was jointly organized by Hong Kong University and RTHK. Lung Ying-tai gave her talk at Hong Kong University on October 7, 2016. RTHK aired the video on December 14, 2016. Why did it take so long? The most frequent answer is that RTHK is an "Yellow Media" media outlet, and the content of this video is politically incorrect and inconvenient. Therefore they held it back and aired it in the hope that the event occurred so long ago that nobody remembers.

- The first paragraph of My Motherland is usually sung by a female solo voice:

A great river flows, its waves wide and calm
Wind blows through rice flowers, bearing fragrance to both shores
My family lives right there by the water
I am used to hearing the punters' call
And seeing the white sails on the boats

This is only like a landscape poem and hardly seems to be 'patriotic' in the manner of the Chinese national anthem. But Lung Ying-tai cut off the audience before they got to sing the rousing chorus:

这是美丽的祖国 This is the beautiful Motherland
是我生长的地方 This is the place where I grew up
在这片辽阔的土地上 On this expansive stretch of land
到处都有明媚的风光 Everywhere there is wonderful scenery to behold

- The song My Motherland first appeared in the 1956 movie Battle on Shangganling Mountain as sung by actress/singer Guo Lanying. This is a black-and-white movie set in the historical background of the Korean war, pitting the Chinese volunteer army against the American imperialists. This explains the third paragraph:

Solo
好山好水好地方 Great mountains, great rivers, a great land
条条大路都宽畅 Every road is broad and wide
朋友来了有好酒 If friends come, there is fine wine
若是那豺狼来了 But if the wolves come
迎接它的有猎枪 Those who greet them have hunting guns

Chorus
这是强大的祖国 This is the mighty Motherland
是我生长的地方 This is the place where I grew up
在这片温暖的土地上 On this stretch of warm and friendly land
到处都有和平的阳光 There is peaceful sunshine everywhere

It was controversial for the pianist Lang Lang to choose to play My Motherland at the White House reception dinner for Chinese President Hu Jin-tao in 2011. Who are the friends and who are the wolves for China in the landscape of global geopolitics?

- The most famous person ever to sing My Motherland in Hong Kong is Peng Liyuan, the Chinese First Lady. [Staged version].

The most famous Hong Kong person ever to sing My Motherland is 6-year-old Celine Tam. [Or Kate Tse? Hacken Lee? Hong Kong Youth Symphonic Orchestra?]

Here are other versions of My Motherland from Han Hong, Tam Wei-wei, Song Zuying accompanied by Lang Lang at the Bird's Nest (Beijing), the 2009 Super Voices Girl Contest Finalists. The fact is that this song is well-known in China, and many people know the lyrics for a sing-along.

- At 18:54 of the HKU video, a young man speaking putonghua said: "I can say that within the more than twenty-something years of my life, my song of enlightenment could be March of the Volunteers." (Applause) "But this song is clearly most notable for its political nature. As the lyricist, he is also the writer. Should he also bear the social responsibility of his times? Thanks."

Lung responded: "Before March of the Volunteers became the national anthem, it was not a national anthem. It was a song for the war of resistance against Japan. I think that a good work of creativity is ... good. It does not have to answer some question or the other because it had not been thought through. When it is a good work, it will have many different, subtle aspects that you may not be able to apply certain formulae to analyze its factors. It is just a good work. Thank you."

- (YouTube) March of the Volunteers from the movie Children of China (1935). (Another copy)

- By comparison with My Motherland, the Chinese national anthem March of the Volunteers is more 'patriotic.'

Arise, ye who refuse to be slaves;
With our very flesh and blood Let us build our new Great Wall!
The Peoples of China are in the most critical time,
Everybody must roar his defiance.

Arise! Arise! Arise!

Millions of hearts with one mind,
Brave the enemy's gunfire, march on!
Brave the enemy's gunfire, march on!
March on! March on! March on, on!

- Here is the National Anthem of the Republic of China, Three Principles of the People.

Here is a favorite soft-power alternative: Plum Blossom by Teresa Teng.

- The American national anthem The Star-Bangled Banner is also 'patriotic'.

O say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

[But see Jimi Hendrix's subversion at Woodstock 1969; The Top 10 American National Anthem performance fails]

Some Americans prefer the alternate American The Beautiful instead:

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed His grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

- The Italian national anthem is Il Canto degli Italiani. But many prefer Va, pensiero (Chorus of the Hebrew slaves) from Giuseppe Verdi's opera Nabucco.

- The French national anthem La Marseillaise is very blood-thirsty:

Arise, children of the Fatherland,
The day of glory has arrived!
Against us tyranny's
Bloody banner is raised, (repeat)
Do you hear, in the countryside,
The roar of those ferocious soldiers?
They're coming right into your arms
To cut the throats of your sons, your women!

To arms, citizens,
Form your battalions,
Let's march, let's march!
Let an impure blood Soak our fields!

- If you want a rousing song, no music is better than the Nazi marching song Erika (Auf der Heide blüht ein kleines Blümelein) even though the lyrics are about a little girl/flower named Erika. The German national anthem is Deutschlandlied, which is changed from the Nazi-era Deutschland Über Alles. The tune comes from Franz Joseph Haydn's Quartet in C-major "Kaiser" second movement.

Deutschlandlied uses only the third stanza today:

Unity, justice and liberty
For our German fatherland!
For all these let us work and strive
United in hearts and hands!
Unity, justice and liberty
Are the pledges of our land;
 |: Flourish in fortune's blessings,
  Flourish, German fatherland! :|

- "For all these let us work and strive"? Do they still believe in Arbeit macht Frei?

- If Erika is masculine, then here is Chinese feminine soft-power.

- The British national anthem is God Save The Queen.

God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen:
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the Queen.

For those who think that the path to Hong Kong independence is to go through reversion to British rule first, then this national anthem is a "NO GO"! It means absolutely nothing to Hongkongers here and now. If you don't like to be ruled by a bunch of grandpas, why do you think being ruled by a British grandma is better? Would you like to bring the Special Branch back to watch over everything that you do?

The extremely patriotic alternative is Land of Hope and Glory:

Solo
    Dear Land of Hope, thy hope is crowned,
       God make thee mightier yet!
    On Sov'ran brows, beloved, renowned,
       Once more thy crown is set.
   Thine equal laws, by Freedom gained,
       Have ruled thee well and long;
   By Freedom gained, by Truth maintained,
       Thine Empire shall be strong.

Chorus
            Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free,
            How shall we extol thee, who are born of thee?
            Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set;
            God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet,
            God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet.

Solo
    Thy fame is ancient as the days,
       As Ocean large and wide:
    A pride that dares, and heeds not praise,
       A stern and silent pride;
    Not that false joy that dreams content
       With what our sires have won;
    The blood a hero sire hath spent
       Still nerves a hero son.

Chorus

Or even more macho yet: Rule Britannia!:

When Britain fi-i-irst, at heaven's command,
Aro-o-o-ose from out the a-a-a-zure main,
Arose, arose from ou-ou-ou-out the a-zure main,
This was the charter, the charter of the land,
And guardian a-a-angels sang this strain:
Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves
Britons never, never shall be slaves.
Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never shall be slaves.
The nations, no-o-o-o-ot so blest as thee,
Must i-i-i-i-in their turn, to ty-y—yrants fall,
Must in their turn, to ty-y-rants fall,
While thou shalt flourish, shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and e-e-e-e-nvy of them all.
Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never shall be slaves.
Rule Britannia!
Britannia rule the waves.
Britons never, never shall be slaves.

Effete snobs prefer Jerusalem (Chariots of Fire) instead, but it will be hard to explain William Blake to the common Hongkonger.

And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon England's mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England's pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In England's green & pleasant Land.

- The official national anthem of Australia is Advance Australia Fair which took over God Save The Queen. But many prefer Waltzing Matilda instead.

Oh there once was a swagman camped in a billabong
Under the shade of the coolibah tree
And he sang as he looked at his old billy boiling
Who'll come a waltzing Matilda with me?

Chorus:
Who'll come a'waltzing Matilda my darling?
Who'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me?
Waltzing Matilda and leading a water bag
Who'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me?

Down came a jumbuck to drink at the water hole
Up jumped the swagman and grabbed him with glee
And he sang as he stowed him away in his tucker bag
You'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me

(Chorus)

Down came the squatter a'riding his thoroughbred
Down came policemen one two three
Whose is the jumbuck you've got in your tucker bag?
You'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me

(Chorus)

But the swagman he up and he jumped in the water hole
Drowning himself by the coolibah tree
And his ghost may be heard as it sings in the billabong
Who'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me?

(Chorus)

- (SCMP) December 21, 2016.

The mass singing of a patriotic song at the University of Hong Kong has sparked heated discussions on the city’s tradition of patriotism.

The song, My Motherland, one of the most beloved melodies in China since its debut in the 1956 film Shangganling Battle, got a surprise rendition on the Pok Fu Lam campus during a talk by renowned Taiwanese writer Lung Yingtai last October.

Speaking on the theme One Song One Era, the former cultural minister and now visiting scholar at HKU invited the audience to name the most inspiring song in their memory.

“I think it would be My Motherland which we were led to sing by our senior schoolmates,” said Dr Albert Chau Wai-lap, vice president of Hong Kong Baptist University and an HKU graduate, after former legislator Alan Leong Ka-kit named Frank Sinatra’s My Way.

Lung was evidently surprised by Chau’s choice and asked him to sing the opening lines, a request that was answered by about 1,000 teachers and students at the Grand Hall, who sang not just the first lines, but the entire song. “I was surprised by his honesty and courage to say it in front of 1,000 audience members that he was inspired by a so-called ‘red song’,” Lung told the Post, adding her view about Hong Kong was not affected by the event.

A commentary in the official mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party expressed otherwise. “There’s nothing surprising in the mass singing during Lung Yingtai’s speech at HKU, what’s surprising is the opinionated mentality of some people [towards China’s culture],” said the People’s Daily on Monday.

The scene was featured on an RTHK television programme which was aired last Wednesday. It went viral online on the mainland when Lung posted her article last Sunday reflecting on the song.

“Half mainlanders and half Hongkongers under one roof with different political beliefs and standpoints singing a song which I have never heard of, isn’t that the best way to listen to each other?” she wrote.

Veteran journalist Ching Cheong, a graduate of HKU in 1974, remembers those days, and the song, well. “Almost every freshman sang My Motherland at HKU because those were very special years marked by ice-breaking events such as Diao Yu Islands, Kissinger’s visit to China and China’s entry to the United Nations,” the 68-year old alumnus said. He recalled the song was sung on campus without any harassment from the colonial government. “There was true freedom on campus in those days. You can’t blame the young ones nowadays for missing the colonial era,” he added.

Historian Elizabeth Sinn, who was singing in the audience, said the melody of the song was attractive. “I sang that song as much as I enjoy other genres like Canto-pops and even Cantonese operas,” she said. “Cultural diversity is the most important asset for HKU and we should treasure it,” she added.

- (SCMP) What’s in a song? Maybe a subtle protest. By Alex Lo. December 24, 2016.

You are what you listen to. Ask someone about his or her favourite song and the answer is likely to say something about that person.

So it’s instructive that pro-democracy barrister Alan Leong Ka-kit says the most inspiring song for him is Frank Sinatra’s kitschy My Way. Personally, I am more partial to Sid Vicious’ version, but that’s just me. Leong’s fellow University of Hong Kong alumnus Albert Chau Wai-lap, however, prefers My Motherland.

The occasion was a lecture by Lung Yingtai, a former Taiwanese cultural minister and now visiting scholar at HKU. Intriguingly enough, no one offered to sing the Sinatra hit. But about 1,000 teachers and students at the lecture broke out in a spontaneous rendition of the entire patriotic song after Lung asked Chau, who is a vice president at Baptist University, to hum a few notes.

The unplanned display of nationalism led to some controversy, including a commentary from the People’s Daily and heated discussions on the internet.

Post-colonial Hong Kong is funny that way. It’s more politically acceptable to sing God Save the Queen and wave the Union Jack on the HKU campus than to sing the national anthem. This is despite the substantial presence of mainland students there, who are presumably much more patriotic than their local counterparts.

Journalist Ching Cheong, a HKU graduate who was once jailed on the mainland, said back in his days in the 1970s, My Motherland could be sung on campus without harassment from the colonial government.

“There was true freedom on campus in those days,” he was quoted as saying. “You can’t blame the young ones nowadays for missing the colonial era.”

As if the young knew what it was like! Which colonial era was this? The one where former home affairs secretary Tsang Tak-sing was denounced by his British schoolmaster and jailed for handing out anti-colonial leaflets outside his school? We have yet to jail someone for advocating independence.

But maybe Ching is right. Try speaking out against localism and independence at HKU student union gatherings, and you risk being ostracised and denounced as a wumao, a Beijing stooge, or much worse if you happen to be from the mainland.

Maybe the spontaneous mass singing was just a display of nostalgia. It looks more like a civilised act of protest.

- (HKG Pao) By Fung Wai-kwong.

A 20-year-old today may not know how the British colonial government ruled, especially how they imprisoned political figures without trial. But how could an older person such as Ching Cheong not know, given that he has a leftist background?

Not far from the HKU campus is Mount Davis, where the University of Chicago School of Business is building a new campus on the site of the Mount Davis Concentration Camp which is sometimes called The White House. More than fifty years ago, the Royal Hong Kong Police's Special Branch imprisoned political dissidents without trial. They were not accountable to any members of the public, or legislators, or pro-democracy activists, or human rights monitors, or media.

According to former prisoner Choi Wei-hung: "I was taken to the Concentration Camp with a hood over my head. I only heard an iron gate open and close, and the sound of a key locking the door ... I heard a weak voice singing 'My Motherland'. Later I learned that the singer was the actress Shek Wei." "The terror at the White House is not any physical torture but the mental torment." "In the single-person cell, the floor is lined with wooden planks. In the corner there is a powerful fan. There is a strong light shining down from the ceiling. In this confined space, a person can neither sit nor stand with the powerful light and wind. I did not know whether it was day or night."

When was the Special Branch dissolved? Around 1995.

Are these the colonial days that the young people of Hong Kong think they are missing? As for those Hong Kong pan-democrats and other oppositionists who oppose everything that the government does right now, did they ever say anything about the "disappeared" political figures back then? "

History won't forget." But isn't this also a piece of Hong Kong history?

(EJ Insight) There is also a White House in Hong Kong. February 29, 2016.

The Hong Kong University Council clash (January 26, 2016)

(SCMP) December 16, 2016.

Professor Arthur Li Kwok-cheung testified on Thursday that he felt his life was threatened when he left a University of Hong Kong governing council meeting this January because protesters were pulling him in response to a student leader’s call to kill him. “I was very scared,” he told the Eastern Court six times.

Li was testifying against Billy Fung Jing-en, 22, who pleaded not guilty to one count of criminal intimidation and its alternative charge of disorderly conduct in public place outside the Hong Kong Jockey Club Building for Interdisciplinary Research in Pok Fu Lam on January 26. He said he was leaving the building with other councillors at 8.45pm when the former student union president repeatedly called out to protesters: “Don’t let him go! Don’t let Arthur Li go! Kill him! Kill him!”

Less than a minute later, he said protesters were pulling on his shoulder and arm as he tried to leave the chaotic scene through a “human bridge” formed by security officers. “It was the first time that someone was actually pulling me, shouting out loud to kill me, I felt my life was threatened,” he continued. “I felt [Fung] was inciting protestors to attack me.”

Assistant director of public prosecutions Derek Lai Kim-wah said protesters were calling for a dialogue with Li. Their assembly followed a three-hour council meeting, during which Li said councillors reviewed school governance and agreed to set up a panel to review the University of Hong Kong Ordinance.

He recalled the protesters as being very emotional and rude, chanting slogans and swearing at them, and that he was worried someone might fall and trigger a domino effect or cause a stampede. Defence counsel Martin Lee Chu-ming SC asked: “In retrospect, would you agree with me that it was not a wise decision for you and your council members to leave the building under such circumstances?”

The court heard that protestors had tried to re-enter the building, with Fung pulling open the door and shouting: “Does anyone want to go in to find Li Kwok-cheung?” But his attempts were blocked by security, reinforced by police officers, leaving a broken glass door with a repair bill of HK$458.13. The incident was captured in multiple video clips, which defence had accepted as authentic. On Thursday, Fung pleaded guilty before magistrate Ko Wai-hung to two counts of criminal damage and attempted forcible entry.

Meanwhile, his co-defendant, then union vice-president Coleman Li Fung-kei, 21, denied obstructing a senior ambulanceman who eventually took nearly two hours to take councillor Leonie Ki Man-fung to the hospital after she was kicked three times by the protestors. He was accused of shouting: “Ki Man-fung is faking death! Don’t let her go!”

The trial continues on Friday.

Internet comments:

- Summary of Billy Fung's guilty pleas:

(EJ Insight)

In a hearing at the Eastern Court on Thursday, Fung admitted that he requested access into the building as a member of the council that night in order to collect his personal belongings. As the security guards opened the door, he stuck his left foot at the door gap and shouted at the crowd behind him to ask if anyone wanted to see council chairman Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, the court heard. Several protesters came and attempted to pull the glass door open. Security guards were able to close the door with the assistance of police officers, but the door frame was deformed in the process and it was reported that the cost of fixing it was HK$458.13.

Video evidence: (TVB) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sMSAvaGDZg. Once you view the video, there can be no doubt on the counts of criminal damage and attempted forcible entry.

- Billy Fung Jing-en pleaded to one count of criminal damage. Under Cap 200 Crimes Ordinance,

Section 60 Destroying or damaging property

(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another-

(a) intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and

(b) intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered, shall be guilty of an offence.

Section 63 Punishment of offences

(2) A person guilty of any other offence under this Part shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for 10 years.

Clearly Fung does not think that he will get the maximum because he is a student with no past convictions and a bright future ahead of him. In all likelihood, he doesn't even think that the magistrate will make him pay the $458.13 in damages because the victim (Hong Kong University) is not indigent.

- Billy Fung Jing-en also pleaded guilty to one count of attempted forcible entry. Under CAP 245 Public Order Ordinance,

Section 23 Forcible entry

(1) Any person who enters on any premises in a violent manner, whether or not he is entitled to enter thereon and whether such violence consists in actual force applied to any other person or in threats or in breaking open any building or in collecting an unusual number of people, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 2 years.

Clearly Fung does not think that he will get the maximum sentence either. By pleading guilty quickly, the magistrate may not even get to study the various videos which the defence has accepted to be authentic. So he probably thinks that he will only have to post a good behavior bond.

- Billy Fung Jing-en pleaded not guilty to criminal intimidation. Under Cap 200 Crimes Ordinance,

Section 23 Certain acts of intimidation prohibited

Any person who threatens any other person-

(a) with any injury to the person, reputation or property of such other person; or

(b) with any injury to the person, reputation or property of any third person, or to the reputation or estate of any deceased person; or

(c) with any illegal act, with intent in any such case-

(i) to alarm the person so threatened or any other person; or

(ii) to cause the person so threatened or any other person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do;

or

(iii) to cause the person so threatened or any other person to omit to do any act which he is legally entitled to do,

shall be guilty of an offence.

Section 27 Penalties

Any person who commits an offence against section 24 or 25 shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of $2000 and to imprisonment for 2 years and shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for 5 years.

Fung probably thinks that he can get off on this count, because it is not certain that he is the person who shouted "Kill him!". It is just his word against Arthur Li's word. And since Arthur Li didn't get killed, whoever said it did not mean it literally. At the most, this should be reduced to the alternate charge of disorderly conduct in a public place.

- (The Stand News)

The Hong Kong University security manager Cheung Hin-kwun also testified that he saw Billy Fung acting as if he was the commander-in-chief and that he heard Billy Fung yell: "Don't let him leave! Don't let Arthur Li leave! Kill him! Kill him!" When the demonstrators heard Fung say that, they became excited and yelled out obscenities. Cheung said that he was worried that they might assault Li so he escorted Li back into the building.

Cheung said that the demonstrators were yelling obscenities. "I wasn't listen to anything, because it was all just obscenities." Some of security guards could hardly breathe because they were pushed so hard. Cheung said that he did not pay attention to Billy Fung because his job was to protect the chairman Arthur Li.

Cheung also noted that there were 70 to 80 reporters in the press area, but also 8 unidentified persons. When asked how he knew that the eight were not reporters, Cheung said that he recognized the reporters from regular events. Based upon his personal observation and experience, those eight were not reporters.

Because Cheung Hin-kwun also said that he heard Billy Fung yell "Kill him!", this is a case of Bill Liar versus two witnesses.

- (Oriental Daily) December 15, 2016.

In court, Arthur Li testified that he attended a HKU Council meeting along with other members. During the meeting, the security guards told him that there was a disturbance. So he called off the press conference and issued a written statement instead. When he left with Vice-chancellor Peter Mathiesen, the people yelled obscenities at him. He said that Billy Fung yelled "Don't let him leave! Don't let Arthur Li leave! Kill him! Kill him! Kill him!" Someone seized him on the right arm and shoulder. A security guard was injured during the process. Li said that the demonstrators were extremely excited and rough. Li said: "For the first time ever, someone held me by force and someone said to kill me. I thought that my life was in danger."

The prosecutor asked what Li thought when he heard Fung yelling "Kill him!" Li replied first and then again to the same question again: "I thought that he was inciting the demonstrators to assault him. He was the instigator." When the prosecutor asked the third time, Li replied: "I was very afraid."

In court, Arthur Li was shown the surveillance videos and the media videos. Besides his personal safety, Li said: "If someone fell down, he could be trampled to death."

After the court session, Fung's lawyer Martin Lee SC said that to Arthur Li with a smile: "It is very safe to leave now." The magistrate told Lee: "Although you two may be well-acquainted with each other, it is best not to speak like friends inside the courtroom."

- (Oriental Daily) December 16, 2016.

Fung's lawyer said that because Arthur Li canceled the press conference and issued only a written statement, the reporters had to chase after him after the meeting ended. This caused the scene to become more chaotic. Arthur Li said that the focus of the news report that night was not about the HKU Council meeting. Instead, the reporters were interested in the 'riot'. Afterwards, most of the media reports were about the chaotic situation that night. "I was not the focus of the news. Instead, it was about the riot."

Fung's lawyer asked Li whether there was a riot that night. Li said: "It was a riot" and said that he told the security guards: "Those people are rioting out there. They've gone crazy."

Fung's lawyer said: "You have your own will! You are called King Arthur!" and questioned why Li did not retreat when he saw the situation. Li said that he had to follow the instructions from the security guards.

- (Sing Tao) December 16, 2016.

Martin Lee SC for Billy Fung said that Fung did not say "Kill him!" But Arthur Li insisted that he heard clearly that Billy Fung said: "Don't let Arthur Li leave! Kill him! Kill him!" Li said: "I do not tell lies. I don't hate him, but I despise him."

Li said that he heard the demonstrators said: "Dialogue!" and "Shameful!" but he does not remember anyone saying: "Go back in and discuss" or "Reform the Hong Kong University Council." Li said: "I was very afraid at the time. I wasn't listening to what they were saying. When one's life is being threatened, how are you going to listen to them talk?"

Li said that the phrase "隊冧佢!" (Kill him!) is triad gangster talk. Concerning the vulgar language used by the demonstrators, Li said: "Educated people don't like to use obscenities." Martin Li SC said that many young people like to use obscenities and that there is a generation gap between Arthur Li and young people. The magistrate interjected: "We are not here to discuss obscene language."

Li said that the police were called not against Billy Fung, but because people's lives were at risk. He said that he was afraid because "I won't be able to go home", "I can't get away", "someone might get hurt", "are the members of the Hong Kong University Council okay?" etc.

- EJ Insight translated "隊冧佢!" as "take him down."

This sounds less serious than "Kill him." Literally "隊" is to stab or thrust; "冧" is collapse or tumble down; "佢" is him. So the whole sentence means to "stab him until he collapses."

- With due respect, "隊冧佢!" has another completely different meaning. It means to keep giving alcohol to someone until he passes out completely. So maybe the students were inviting Arthur Li to have a few drinks with them.

- Besides, "隊冧佢!" is figurative and not literal. In like manner, if the demonstrators said "Fuck your mother" to Arthur Li, they don't literally mean that they will copulate with Li's mother.

- So the next time that you come out and scream "Down with the Chinese Communist Party!", what do you mean literally or figuratively?

- Hong Kong Free Press reported that the Cantonese phrase for "kill" here can also be interpreted as "knock down." You can argue for that, but the fact is that not many people call on others to "knock him down."

- To illustrate from Whatscap, here is the applicable situation "隊冧佢!"  for  "I'm really not scared. I want to kill him. Kill that bastard ..."  Notice the wrapped butcher knife to be used for the job.

- Interestingly, if you Google for images on "隊冧佢!", you will find a lot of Billy Fung images. Fung is now permanently associated with that term.

- (Oriental Daily) December 16, 2016.

When Martin Lee SC told Arthur Li that Billy Fung did not say anything like "Kill him!", Li disagreed. He said that he clearly heard Fung say it. Li added: "Everything that he said before was lies." He asked Martin Lee SC: "Do you still believe him?"

Martin Lee SC accused Li of falsely accusing Fung. Li replied: "I don't tell lies. I took an oath in court. What good is it to me to lie?" Martin Lee SC said that it was because Li hated Fung. Li said: "I don't hate him. I despise him. He has a character flaw."

Arthur Li also thought that "隊冧佢!" (Kill him!) was triad gangster talk. "We don't use obscenities in normal society." Martin Lee SC said that Li was out of touch and that he has a generation gap with young people. Arthur Li said: "Educated people don't use obscenities. Obscenities cannot convey your ideas. When reporters write, they don't use obscenities."

- (Oriental Daily) December 19, 2016.

HKU Security Manager Cheung Hin-kwun testified today in court. Cheung said that he rarely uses obscenities on his job. Cheung was aware that Billy Fung had made up a nickname for him: "Mike X" where X is an obscene word. Cheung insisted that he does not hate Fung: "How can I hate him? I don't hate any HKU student. I will assist him." Cheung said: "Most students are well-behaved." Cheung said that he did not feel anything one way or the other towards Billy Fung before, but this incident made him feel that Fung "is very bad."

The defense said that the demonstration was started by the HKU Strike Committee started by Yvonne Leung and not connected to Billy Fung. Cheung said that he didn't know whether this is true or false. The defense asked him to identify Yvonne Leung in court. Cheung went to the public seating area. Twice he said that Leung was not present. Then he exclaimed that Leung was indeed present, causing mirth in court.

The defense wanted to know how Cheung could have "looked at Fung and heard that he said four sentences" in a very noisy environment with four or live layers of people between them. Cheung said: "But I happened to be actually looking at him at the time, so I heard him very clearly." The defense said: "Maybe Fung was unlucky?" Cheung replied: "Maybe I was lucky."

Cheung characterized Fung as "hysterical, out of control, abnormal, crazy" as he said: "Don't let him leave. Don't let Arthur Li leave. Kill him. Kill him." Cheung said that he could have guessed from the first sentence that Fung was talking about Arthur Li. Cheung said that he worked as a triad expert at the Hong Kong Police. Cheung knew that "隊冧" means to kill, and the crowd responded by pushing forward. Cheung said that Li told him: "I'm afraid of being assaulted." Therefore Cheung suggested that they return to the building.

The defense asked Cheung whether he had any regrets because the decision to escort Arthur Li and other Council members away by a human chain had failed. Cheung said that they were able to bring Li back unharm into the building.

Cheung said that he had experience to tell among "students, reporters and miscellaneous other persons." The defense said that this is utter nonsense. The defense showed a surveillance tape and asked Cheung to show how to tell the differences among these people. Cheung said: "The video is too small and fuzzy. If I were at the scene, I could tell you." Then he added: "The people taking videos with iPhone's are definitely not reporters."

- (Oriental Daily) December 20, 2016.

HKU Council member Leonie Ki said that the council meeting ended at around 8pm that evening. She and a number of other council members were unable to leave due to the crowd outside. The security guards formed a human chain to lead them out. A crowd rushed at them from all directions and pushed her over to the grassy area on the left. She said that she was scared of the chaotic situation. "I was taken hostage. They surrounded for me. The ground was slippery. I was scared of a stampede in which I would be at the bottom of the pile. My life was being really threatened."

The On.cc video was played. Ki was shown to be surrounded by a bunch of people who yelled at her: "Explain!" "Give your account!" "You have received higher education and you should be ashamed!" "Don't make it hard on the police!" Ki said that the press initially filmed outside the building. After she was surrounded for more than one hour, the press began to filmed her predicament. She said: "I am grateful that On.cc took this video. Otherwise nobody would know if I died. I feel that they were genuinely covering the news."

- (Hong Kong Free Press) December 21, 2016.

A member of the University of Hong Kong’s (HKU) governing Council, Leonie Ki Man-fung, testified on Tuesday that she felt like she was being “held hostage” by students protesters during a council meeting protest in January.

Ki said at the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts that she was pushed and surrounded by a group of more than 100 people who “came from all directions.” She added that she was “frightened” and worried that she might be stepped upon if she fell, as the floor was wet and slippery.

Ki also said she felt her life was threatened. She added that someone kicked or bumped into the back of her knee, while someone shouted “make her dive.” The Cantonese term for “dive” is commonly used to describe football players falling to the ground and feigning an injury.

Ki said she was “grateful” that local newspaper Oriental Daily filmed the situation, because otherwise “no one would know, even if I died.” Ki also mentioned that she felt “nauseous and dizzy” and was unable to get on the stretcher, adding that she could “hardly move a step” as crowds kept on pushing her back.

Colman Li Fung-kei, the former student union external vice-president of HKU, was charged for allegedly blocking an ambulance carrying Ki on January 26 at the Sassoon Road campus. He denied the charge of obstructing a public officer to lawfully engage in public duty.

Senior Security Manager of the Estates Office, Teddy Wong, said he agreed with the defence team that the students did not want to injure the council members, which is one of the reasons why no one was hurt. He added: “I believe, even if HKU students are very verbally abusive, they will not hurt others physically.”

- (Oriental Daily) December 20, 2016.

Emergency Rescue team leader Cheung Ka-fai testified that he and two other team members were summoned to the location. They were obstructed when they tried to move the stretcher and other equipment. At the scene, he saw former Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow and Hong Kong University strike committee member Yvonne Leung. Leung used a megaphone to yell: "Nobody is feeling ill inside. Who are you trying to rescue?" During the confusion, somebody held the stretcher while others tried to seize it. Cheung and his colleagues were unable to bring the stretcher to where Leonie Ki was. So Cheung escorted Ki to walk directly to the ambulance. After they got into the ambulance, some people banged on the ambulance while others stuck their hands through the car windows.

Emergency Rescue team member Shi Wing-wah testified that an obese man in his 20's wearing a dark-colored hoodie and black-rimmed glasses used his body to press on the stretcher. This man said excitedly: "You leave. Nobody needs you here. Nobody has been hurt." Eventually the ambulance was able to leave with the assistance of the police. According to the prosecutor, the man was Colman Li Fung-kei, the former HKU Student Union external vice-president.

- (Oriental Daily) December 21, 2016.

Hong Kong University security manager Fung Chi-choi testified that his supervisor told him that Leonie Ki was feeling ill and required ambulance service. So he and the Emergency Rescue crew headed towards Ki's location. About 70 to 80 persons surrounded them. An 20-something-year-old obese meet wearing dark clothing pressed his hands on the stretcher and screamed: "Leonie Ki is faking it! Don't let her leave!" Fung said that he was kicked and punched from behind. In the end, he was forced out.

- What is Colman Lee's defense anyway? He is as guilty as a plate of sins. See, for example, this video beginning at 1:50 about "the 20-something-year-old man wearing a dark-colored hoodie and black-rimmed glasses"? If he can do it, he should have the courage to admit as such.

- (Oriental Daily) December 22, 2016

Yesterday the prosecutor applied to court to let Hong Kong University security manager Fung Chi-choi identify the defendant Colman Lee in court. The magistrate approved the application. Today Fung identified Colman Lee as the "obese young man" who used his hands to stop the stretcher and yelled "Leonie Ki is faking it! Don't let her leave!"

When asked why didn't he call out Colman Lee's name at the scene, Fung explained: "If one day I saw you about to be hit by a car in the street, I would directly tell you to move away without calling out your name." The defense said that the situation was chaotic and Colman Lee would be blocking the stretcher from leaving no matter where he stood. Furthermore there is no evidence that Colman Lee intentionally obstructed the stretcher. Fung demurred.

- Why go through the identification process in court? Because on that night, the 20-something-year-old obese man in a dark hoodie wore black-rimmed glasses whereas Colman Lee did not wear glasses in court.

P.S. If I were Colman Lee, I would have gone on an emergency diet to become The Thin Man. Or, at the very least, get a different hairdo.

- Defense lawyers construct their defense in several stages.

Firstly, they will claim that their client was not at the scene.

In the second stage, after incontrovertible proof is offered that their client was at the scene, they will claim that their client did not participate in the alleged action.

In the third stage, after incontrovertible proof is offered that their client was at the scene and took the alleged action, they will claim that their client was under temporarily/permanently diminished mental capacity and therefore not responsible for their action.

In the fourth stage, after incontrovertible proof is offered the their client was at the scene and took part in the alleged action with full control of their mental/physical capacity, they will claim in mitigation that their client feels deeply remorseful about his action, promises not to repeat the same mistake and has a bright future which should not be blemished by a conviction. There will be letters of support from the parents, teachers, fellow students, co-workers, social workers and priests/pastors.

In the fifth stage, they will appear with their client holding up the V-sign after the magistrate imposes a 12-month probation.

Today, Martin Lee SC is in the second stage of the defense of Colman Lee.

- (TVB) December 23, 2016.

The final witness for the prosecution was HKU security team member Tang Chi-shing. Tang testified that he had been assigned to monitor the surveillance cameras from the security office. He went to reinforce his colleagues when chaos broke out outside the conference building. The first thing that he did was to bring vice-chancellor Peter Mathieson back inside the building. Tang said that he went back out and again and got near the ambulance stretcher. He observed a man wearing black clothing holding back the stretcher and yelling: "Leonie Ki has not been injured" and "Leonie Ki is abusing ambulance service." The man was preventing the stretcher from moving. Tang testified that he had seen this man before at the July meeting of the HKU Council.

- (Hong Kong Economic Journal) (Sing Tao) January 25, 2017.

The prosecutor said that multiple witnesses identified Colman Lee, who created fear even if he did not actually carry out his threats.

The defense lawyer Martin Lee SC said that the witness Arthur Li Kwok-cheung pretended to be scared. He said that Arthur Li is an easily scared man. He said that the witness Cheung Hin-kwun changed his testimony in court in order to mesh with Arthur Li's testimony. Furthermore, most of Cheung's testimony was an insult to the intelligence of the court.

Martin Lee SC also pointed out that Fung Chi-choi identified the defendant a long time afterwards, and therefore he could have had the time to look up the information on the Internet first. Furthermore, Fung could not name Colman Lee when the police took his statement. This shows that Fung is unreliable and his identification of Colman Lee in court should be discounted.

The summations have now been made. The ruling will be issued on March 29.

-  (Ming Pao) July 20, 2017.

The magistrate Ko Wai-hung ruled that 22-year-old Billy Fung Jing-en did say "Kill him!" which scared Arthur Li. However, Fung used the third-person "him" instead of the second-person "you", so it is not certain whether Fung was threatening Li. Therefore the magistrate found Fung not guilty of criminal threat. However, the magistrate ruled that Fung's words exceeded the rights under the constitution and found him guilty of disturbing the peace.

Previously the defense had asserted that Arthur Li could not be paying attention to what Fung was saying given that Fung was several meters and the scene was crowded and noisy. The magistrate said that Li recognized Fung, so it was normal for Li to pay attention to Fung. Furthermore it only takes several seconds to say: "Don't let him go. Don't let Arthur Li go. Kill him! Kill him!"

The defense also said that the student union president Billy Fung Jing-en could not have said those words in the presence of so many security guards and reporters. The magistrate said that the videos showed large numbers of people wearing masks. If they were there to express their opinions in a regular manner, they wouldn't need to cover their faces.

Co-defendant Colman Lee was found guilty of obstructing the delivery of a summons.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) July 20, 2017.

Former Hong Kong University (HKU) student union president Billy Fung has been acquitted Thursday of criminally intimidating governing council chair Arthur Li during a council meeting protest last January. But the 24-year-old graduate faces jail time after being convicted of the alternative charge of acting in a disorderly manner by the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts. He pleaded guilty earlier to attempting to force his way into the school building where the meeting was held, and damaging the front door of the building.

Fung was accused of threatening Li during the protest by shouting as he was next to Li: “Don’t let him go! Don’t let Arthur Li go! Kill him! Kill him!” The Cantonese phrase for “kill” can also be interpreted as “knock down.”

Li told the court that he was scared when Fung shouted the words, and that Fung was the “mastermind” behind the “riot.” He said two men pulled his right arm and swore at him, and added that he believed the duo attempted to pull him out and attack him.

The defence challenged the credibility of Li’s evidence earlier, as Li admitted that he “looked down upon” Fung for previously publicising the contents of Council meetings. Li also described Fung’s character as “questionable.” But he denied that he hated the student.

Magistrate Ko Wai-hung said Thursday that Li was an honest and trustworthy witness. He said it would not be impossible for Li to make out Fung’s words in a chaotic, noisy scene. He also said Fung meant what he said because he repeatedly uttered the words. He dismissed the argument that Fung was merely acting emotionally.

But the magistrate acquitted Fung on the basis that he could not be sure that the words “kill him” – instead of “kill you” – were meant to threaten Li himself.

Ko found him guilty of the alternative charge of disorderly conduct on the basis that the words were “meant to be a call to the crowd surrounding Li to stop him from leaving the scene by force.” “By uttering these words, [Fung] must have had the intent to provoke a breach of the peace, and what he did was likely to cause a breach of the peace,” Ko said in a press summary.

Meanwhile, another student union member Colman Li Fung-kei, 21, was convicted of obstructing public officers in the execution of duty. The offence carries a maximum penalty of HK$1,000 fine and six months behind bars. Li was accused of obstructing a paramedic, preventing him from reaching HKU Council member Leonie Ki Man-fung during the protest. Ki told the court earlier that she felt as if she was being “held hostage” by the protesters. The dispute surrounded the identification evidence. On Thursday, Ko held that a key witness correctly identified Li.

Both Fung and Li chose not to give evidence or call upon witnesses during the trial.

The hearing was adjourned to Thursday afternoon for the parties to discuss sentencing. The two defendants were remanded in custody in the meantime.

Fung said on the eve of his verdict that the conviction would “crush” his dream of becoming a secondary school teacher. He said he was probably the first HKU student union leader to have a criminal record “for defending institutional and academic autonomy.” He also expressed despair at the prosecutions facing many young people for their activism. “Our experience of government oppression will become the memory of our generation,” he said. “But I still believe justice will prevail. History will remember the people who fought and made sacrifices for Hong Kong.”

Press Summary of ESCC 2357/2016 and ESS 27186/2016 (7/20/2017)

...

Findings

9. The court finds that D1 did call out in Li’s direction “Don’t let him go! Don’t let Arthur LI go! Kill him! Kill him!”. The court also finds that shortly after D1 uttered these words, two males pulled Li’s right shoulder and his arm respectively. Besides, the force with which Li and Cheung was jostled by the crowd was greater than before the utterance was made.

10. However, the court is of the view that there is no evidence to show what D1 was doing shortly before and after these words were spoken. Having considered that in this particular utterance, Li was referred to in the third person instead of the second person and that there were several rows of people separating D1 from Li and Cheung, the court cannot draw the inference that D1 was addressing Li when he said those words. The court therefore cannot be sure that D1 uttered those words with intent to alarm Li. The prosecution has failed to prove charge 1 against D1 beyond reasonable doubt. The court finds D1 not guilty of charge 1.

11. As far as charge 2 is concerned, the court finds that the utterance “Don’t let him go! Don’t let Arthur LI go! Kill him! Kill him!” was meant to be a call to the crowd surrounding Li to stop him from leaving the scene by force. By uttering these words among the crowd in Li’s direction, D1 was behaving in a disorderly and threatening manner. By uttering these words, D1 must have had the intent to provoke a breach of the peace, and what he did was likely to cause a breach of the peace. The court finds D1 guilty of charge 2.

12. As far as the summons is concerned, the court finds that Fung already knew D2 well and sufficiently before the incident. The court also finds that D2 did, on the day of the offence, pressed down on the stretcher with both hands and body, and as a result of that, ambulanceman Cheung Ka-fai eventually gave up conveying Ki to the ambulance with the stretcher. In accordance with the legal principle established by the Court of Final Appeal in HKSAR v. Tam Lap Fai (2005) 8 HKCFAR 216, D2’s conduct must have caused obstruction to the ambulanceman in the due execution of his duty. The court finds D2 guilty of the summons.

- CAP 245 Public Order Ordinance

Section 17B Disorder in public places

(2) Any person who in any public place behaves in a noisy or disorderly manner, or uses, or distributes or displays any writing containing, threatening, abusive or insulting words, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be caused, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine at level 2 and to imprisonment for 12 months.

- Common law is based upon case precedents. Here is a most recent case:

(Hong Kong Free Press) July 19, 2017.

Three men have been handed jail sentences for following pro-democracy lawmaker Eddie Chu on the day of the Legislative Council elections last September. A fourth has been given community service.

The Tuen Mun Magistrates’ Courts convicted Wong Kin-fai, 36, Wong Chun-yam, 18, Lam Ka-chun, 43, and Ho Yee-kei, 41 of loitering last month. The first two defendants previously claimed that they were driving around on the morning of September 4 last year in order to find a place to eat breakfast.

On Tuesday, the court sentenced Wong Kin-fai, Wong Chun-yam and Lam to two months’ imprisonment. Ho, the only defendant without a criminal record, was ordered to serve 160 hours of community service.

The magistrate said the defendants premeditated their crimes as they began following Chu before dawn, reported RTHK.

He added that although the defendants did not make verbal threats to Chu, following him with two vehicles was enough to lead the candidate to fear for his safety – making a deterrent sentence necessary.

Three men received two months in jail each for 'loitering'. They did not threaten their target with "Don't let him leave! Kill him! Kill him!"  They ceased their activity even before the police arrived. They did not prevent their target from leaving. They did not do anything that scared their target. What will people think if Billy Fung gets only 80 hours of community service?

- (Sing Tao) July 20, 2017.

In mitigation, Senior Counsel Martin Lee said that neither defendants have prior criminal records and their crimes are not serious. Whether a severe sentence is required as deterrent depends on the social atmosphere, and right now it is a harmonious society ready to repair the rifts. Therefore a severe sentence is not required.

The defense submitted a number of letters.

One letter came from Billy Fung's mother. She said that she is a single mother who could not afford to buy toys for her son due to poverty. But Billy never complained. Billy has gone through two major illnesses so far. In Primary School sixth year, Billy had leukemia. In Secondary School fourth year, Billy had a brain tumor which caused him to lose consciousness. Billy carries a note on him to say that he has an illness and, if he is found, he should be taken back to Hong Kong University. This showed that Billy loves Hong Kong University and is sworn to defend to the university. Senior Counsel Martin Lee choked in tears when he came to this part.

Stephen Chan (former head of TVB) wrote a letter to say that Billy is sincere, responsible and selfless. Although what Billy did her is improper and unacceptable, he has suffered enough during the trial and this is punishment enough already. But giving him a criminal record would be indelible.

- (Oriental Daily) July 20, 2017. After being found guilty, Billy Fung was allowed bail of $10,000 and Colman Lee $500. Sentencing will be held on September 21. The two are not allowed to leave Hong Kong during that time, except Billy Fung can travel to Taiwan between September 4-10 to register for university.

- (SCMP) July 22, 2017.

Where young people lack experience, wrote Alexis de Tocqueville in The Old Regime and the French Revolution, they make up for with enthusiasm. In the past few years, we have witnessed plenty of “youthful enthusiasm” in Hong Kong. The Occupy protests are such an example. The Mong Kok riot is another, so is the advent of localist-inspired separatism.

In all those instances, I would argue they have not advanced Hong Kong’s political development. If anything, it’s the opposite. While politically inspired passions are intoxicating, many young people are waking up to the terrible consequences – it’s the morning after.

Among those are University of Hong Kong’s former student union leader Billy Fung Jing-en and fellow HKU activist Colman Li Fung-kei. Both are now facing possible jail terms for their actions during a student protest against the university’s governing council and its chairman Arthur Li Kwok-cheung.

They are the latest of dozens of young protesters to face court-imposed punishment for their activism. You may call it persecution. But that narrative may be hard to sustain if you still believe our courts are independent.

Fung said he might be the first student to go to jail for defending university autonomy and academic freedom. Brave words; many of his supporters think the same way, too. However, it’s not clear that agitating for a public disturbance against the HKU council and its members amounted to a defence of the university’s core values and mission. At the very least, reasonable people may disagree with Fung and his comrades.

Less charitably, young activists like Fung and Li, and disqualified lawmakers Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang, simply crossed the line. In their passionate belief in the rightness of their cause, whatever they do is deemed right or justified, even if it breaches community standards of what counts as politically acceptable behaviour.

Things might have been better if there had been political elders who could provide them with guidance and advice – or at least coordination. Instead of offering leadership, those who ought to know better called them heroes and vanguards, gleefully cheered them on and let them run amok.

They sent young people to the barricades. When that didn’t work, they were happy to blame it all on the government and Beijing for their “oppression”. For sure, hardline officials are partly to blame. But the opposition is letting their foot soldiers pay the price.

- (HKG Pao) July 25, 2017.

Prevously, Shu Yan University former Student Union president Joe Yeung was sent to jail for two years for arson (see Rubbish! and More on Rubbish!). Recently Chinese University of Hong Kong former Student Union president Ernie Chow went to visit Yeung in prison. Chow described Yeung as physically and mentally fit. Yeung wanted Chow to carry this message to Hong Kong University former president Billy Fung: "There is nothing terrifying about prison. No need to worry about being assaulted."

- (Ming Pao) July 25, 2017.

At around 11am, ex-legislator took the MTR to Admiralty station in order to go to Government Headquarters. When he passed through Admiralty Centre, he became surrounded by people. He had an argument with a 65-year-old woman with family name Cheung. Leung said that he heard Cheung use the term "Kill" at least three times. Leung said that he felt threatened and called the police. The police came and arrested Cheung for making a criminal threat.

Leung told our newspaper that he believed that Cheung was trying to imitate Billy Fung during the case of his criminal threat against Arthur Li. Fung yelled "Kill him!" but was found not guilty of criminal threat because the third person and not the second person was used. But Leung said that Cheung was different because she said it in close proximity and clearly implied that Leung was the target.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Septembe 21, 2017.

Former Hong Kong University (HKU) student union president Billy Fung has been sentenced to 240 hours of community service for acting in a disorderly manner, attempted forceful entry and criminal damage during a protest on campus last January.

The 23-year-old graduate was acquitted of criminally intimidating governing council chair Arthur Li during a council meeting protest last January, but was convicted of the alternative charge of acting in a disorderly manner. The magistrate Ko Wai-hung had previously said that a jail term was likely.

Another former student union member Colman Li, 21, was sentenced to 200 hours of community service for obstructing public officers in the execution of duty at the protest for blocking an ambulance carrying a council member from leaving.

Martin Lee, defence counsel for the duo, said in court that they have remorse and will not appeal.

In court on Thursday, defence counsel Martin Lee, in referring to a Court of Appeal judgment over the Occupy trio’s jail sentences, said the ruling was made after the current incident took place and that the sentencing guidelines did not apply to this case. Otherwise, Lee argued, there would be a retroactive effect and injustice would be resulted.

Lee also said that according to the probation officer’s report, the suitable sentence for the two defendants was community service. However, the magistrate said that if the case was serious, the court should not give community service orders. But the magistrate accepted that the two were truly remorseful.

Pro-Beijing figures Abraham Shek and Leonie Ki, who are both on the HKU council, put in letters of mitigation for Fung and Colman Li respectively. Ki wrote that she had accepted the Li’s apology and forgiven him.

Outgoing HKU Vice-Chancellor Peter Mathieson and former HKU council chair Edward Leong also submitted letters of mitigation but they were not read out in court.

(The Standard) December 14, 2016.

Youngspiration's Sixtus Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching will appeal to the highest court against being banned from the Legislative Council because they failed to take their oaths of office. The pair said they have already raised HK$400,000 through crowdfunding to go toward a deposit for the appeals that may cost as much as HK$1.6 million.

Leung, 30, and Yau, 25, will be talking more about their plans outside the High Court today, though they intend to file the appeals close to the December 28 deadline. Leung said yesterday there would be new points in their appeals, adding: "There's a chance of winning."

Yau said there are four matters in all to appeal - two being their status as legislators and two on whether Legislative Council president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen has the authority to administer their oaths again. "We're still raising money as each case costs HK$400,000," she said. That means HK$1.6 million, and "we just have one-fourth." The financial need could change according to how the Court of Final Appeal reacts to the filings, Leung said. It is understood the pair will seek to consolidate the four cases into one.

Leung and Yau also intend to hire a new legal team to join senior counsels Hectar Pun Hei and Philip Dykes.

The pair arrived at deciding what comes next after the Court of Appeal dismissed on November 30 their appeals against the Court of First Instance's November 15 decision to disqualify them from the legislature for "declining or neglecting" to take their oaths. They also face having to pay at least HK$5 million for legal costs, including the government's hiring of senior counsels Benjamin Yu Yuk-hoi and Johnny Mok Shiu-luen.

(The Standard) December 14, 2016.

The two ousted Youngspiration legislators quoted legal advice saying they shouldn't need to repay the HK$1.86 million demanded by the Legislative Council Secretariat, but are short of money to take the case to the highest court. Sixtus "Baggio" Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching said yesterday the Court of Final Appeal would not hear the case without seeing a deposit of HK$1.6 million by January.

The duo have sought legal advice and said there was no legal basis for the Legco Secretariat to make them reimburse the HK$1.86 million by Monday. The sum includes their October salary of HK$95,180 each, and advance operation funds of HK$834,393 each. The Legco Secretariat in response said it is seeking instructions from the Legco Commission on follow-up work, including legal action, in case the sum is not repaid.

Outside the High Court yesterday, Leung, 30, and Yau, 25, said they would file the appeal before the December 28 deadline, but had so far crowdfunded only HK$440,000, which had been used to pay lawyers. "Without the HK$1.6 million, the court won't even begin session," Leung said.

They were confident their appeal would get the court's leave, as they had come up with new legal points, but they refused to elaborate at this stage. "We were bullied too terribly in the last two hearings, thus please give us some chance to better utilize the time and space we have," Leung said.

Yau said they had to appeal as the case concerned the separation of powers, Legco independence and the validity of the September election. "The government filed judicial review against our status as legislators and destroyed the separation of powers. It created a gap. If we give up today, the gap will always be there," she said.

Throughout the press conference, several elderly patriots yelled swear words, calling the two "traitors."

(SCMP) December 14, 2016.

Youngspiration’s Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chung-hang said Wednesday that they will be raising new legal arguments over the oath dispute as they take their case to the Court of Final Appeal. It will be their last chance to overturn decisions from the lower courts last month to disqualify them from the legislature.

“We can’t say much about our legal arguments today, but we are confident that we will get leave to appeal from the court,” Leung said. “However, we must be able to secure HK$1.6 million for paying the Court of Final Appeal’s deposit, or else the court will not hear our appeal.”

The duo are seeking donations of HK$5 million from the public. They said on Wednesday that they had raised about HK$440,000, which had already been used to pay their lawyers.

The pair will be submitting their request on December 28, the final appeal deadline. Leung explained their strategy to HKFP earlier: “The government led us by the nose in the previous two legal proceedings. They have a lot of time advantages. We faced time constraints [preparing] our legal arguments. We also could not apply for legal aid.”

“There is no need to let them lead us by the nose. Waiting until the last day also gives them a shorter time to look at our argument, which is also a good thing.”

Yau said Wednesday that the legal dispute is an important battleground as it touched upon key issues such as the separation of powers and “whether elections are still elections.”

“The Hong Kong government’s move to challenge the oaths of some lawmakers and the principle of the separation of powers has opened the floodgates. If we give up today, this floodgate will always exist,” Yau said. “Our case will have an impact on all future judicial review challenges concerning Hong Kong’s constitution.”

The duo also vowed to continue their resistance against the Hong Kong and Chinese governments. “We will not submit to this unjust regime of the Chinese Communist Party that does not respect the spirit of contracts,” Yau said.

“Even if we win, under the regime of the Chinese Communist Party, we will at most reclaim a shield, but it won’t solve the fundamental issues. We will definitely be back on the streets,” she added. “We pledge to protect dissidents and the people by all means.”

(SCMP) December 14, 2016.

Ousted pro-independence lawmakers at the centre of a political firestorm over improper oath-taking on Wednesday said their final appeal against their disqualification from the legislature would focus on the city’s “core values”.

After announcing Tuesday they would take their case to the Court of Final Appeal, Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang said their appeal would question the validity of a Beijing interpretation of the Basic Law, the city’s separation of power from the mainland, Legco’s independence and the legitimacy of elections. They added their case would take into account the possibility of the Court of Final Appeal seeking intervention from Beijing.

Yau said winning the appeal could help “block loopholes the government had created. But even if we win the case, the problem has yet to be solved and in the end, we would have to go back to the streets,” she said.

But the Youngspiration pair’s appeal may still fail to materialise, after they revealed they had only raised HK$440,000 of the HK$1.6 million needed to cover the court’s security costs. They have until December 28 to raise the funds, which would ensure their case is heard.

Video:

SocREC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpLbUPZK9h0 Hey, whoever is paying the aunties to shout is getting their money's worth because they were working very hard today.

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1162926480409380/

Internet comments:

- The stars of the press conference were the aunties and uncles who chanted: "Chinese traitors", "Drop dead", "Go back to be Comfort Woman" etc.

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1163395030362525/

- (SCMP) Addressing media on Wednesday, the pair were confronted by a handful of protesters, who hurled abuse. “Japanese dog. Betrayer,” the protesters shouted. Police said they had no power to round up protesters.

- Hahaha! I keeled over with laughter with I read: "Police said they had no power to round up protestors." When a government official makes an appearance, you show up and drown his speech out with shouts. You feel very good about yourself because you know full well that the police cannot remove you. Now it is your turn to make a public appearance, and a bunch of people drown your speech out with shouting. You ask the police to remove them because they are depriving you of your freedom of speech. But the police say that they have no power to do so. What sweet irony! Bwahhhhh!

- The tactic of disrupting your enemies is a tactic, which means that it can be used by anyone on any side against their enemies.

- Let's look at the ledger for Leung/Yau.

On the debit side,

$5,000,000 for their own legal fees in the Court of First Instance to defend against the government's judicial review.

$1,000,000 for the government's legal fees in the Court of First Instance case so ordered by the judge after Leung/Yau lost.

$1,000,000 for their own legal fees in the High Court of Appeal.

$1,000,000 for the Legislative Council's legal fees in the High Court of Appeal so ordered by the panel of three judges after Leung/Yau lost the appeal.

$95,180 x 2 = $190,360 for their Legislative Council October salaries of $95,180 each

$834,393 x 2 = $1,668,786 each for the operation funds advanced by the Legislative Council.

Grand total = $9,859,146

On the credit side,

$440,000 raised by crowdfunding.

The crowdfunding campaign began as an effort to cover the $5,000,000 legal fees for the original case at the Court of First Instance to fight against the government's judicial review. So far, they claim to have raised $440,000. However, that $440,000 is now said to earmarked for the eventual case at the Court of Final Appeal. So how do they plan to deal with the $9,859,136 that they owe? They don't. That's the answer.

On the legal bills, their own lawyers Hectar Pun Hei SC and Philip Dykes SC will probably be doing this pro bono, unless they sue their own clients and even force them into bankruptcy. But Jat Sew-tong SC for Legco president Andrew Leung and Benjamin Yu SC for the government will demand their pound of flesh.

On the Legco's salary and operation fund, Leung and Yau said that they have received legal advice that they don't have to pay a dime back. The Legislative Council will have to go through the legal process to get their money.

- So far Leung/Yau have received $1,859,146 from the Legislative Council. Where is that money now? It is true that they are known to consume a lot of alcohol (Glenfiddich, Moët-Chandon, etc), but they couldn't drink $1.8 million in one month, can they? And even if Yau Wai-ching buys a lot of clothes, she couldn't spend $1.8 million in one month, can she? So it is certain that most of that money is still in their hands. What are they doing with it? The only thing that they have said is that the money is not earmarked for the Court of Final Appeal case, which will be funded by crowdfunding only.

- (Speakout HK)

0:14 Leung Chung-hang: There is no much legitimacy in asking the money back. Not much ground.

- They need $1.6 million to file with the Court of Final Appeal. So far they have raised only $440,000. So the people suckers of Hong Kong need to send them more money right now. If on the cutoff date of December 28th, they still couldn't reach the $1.6 million target, then there is no way to file. What happens to the money raised so far? They don't say.

- I know what will happen to the money. They will use the money to buy more alcohol, because the whole thing has been so stressful on them and they need to drink plenty of alcohol to calm their nerves.


Recent photo of Yau Wai-ching shopping for more alcohol

- Anyone who has read the rulings by the Court of First Instance and the High Court of Appeal will know that their likelihood of winning at the Court of Final Appeal is close to zero. Why do it then? Because they want you to give more of your money to them to buy more expensive alcohol! It is that simple.

- The fatal flaw in the Leung/Yau's case is this paragraph from the court's ruling.

41. On the facts, there can be no dispute that both Leung and Yau have declined respectively to take the LegCo Oath. They have put forward no argument to dispute this. Nor can they. There can be no innocent explanation for what they uttered and did on 12 October 2016. What has been done was done deliberately and intentionally. This conclusion, reached by the judge after careful consideration, is unassailable.

What new legal theory do they have? At first, Leung told the press that it was his Ap Lei Chau accent, but he did not raise that as his defense in court.

- In Yau Wai-ching's Facebook, she listed the core issues: (1) the separation of powers; (2) the independence of the Legislative Council; (3) the validity of the Legislative Council elections as a whole.

On the separation of powers, she said that the government has violated the separation of powers by going forth with a judicial review. This breach will exist unless it can be overturned upon appeal. Both the Court of First Instance and the High Court of Appeal have noted that Basic Law is the supreme law of the land and overrides the Legislative Council Ordinance. An appeal is therefore only going to lead to either a reaffirmation of the principle which would make it ironclad, or else to a reversal which will cause the National People's Congress Standing Committee to issue another Interpretation that will make this loud and clear in no uncertain terms. In either case, Leung/Yau will have caused even more damage.

On the independence of the Legislative Council, this is the same argument again. Leung/Yau are charged of violating Basic Law Article 104,

Article 104
When assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

And nowhere in their defense do they deny this as a matter of fact. Instead their defense revolves around:

Article 77
Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be immune from legal action in respect of their statements at meetings of the Council.

Both the Court of First Instance and the High Court of Appeal noted that the oath of office is not "a meeting of the Council" and therefore not covered by Article 77. In any case, Leung/Yau's legal theory is that the oath of office is part of a meeting of the Council and therefore immune from legal action. This means that Basic Law Article 104 should be amended to exclude the members of the Legislative Council from being required to take an oath of office. It is hard to see how the Court of Final Appeal could agree with this line of reasoning.

On the validity of the Legislative Council elections as a whole, this covers the cases of the nominees who were voided by the Returning Officers as well as other legislative councilors whose oaths are being challenged by the government. That seems to be a completely different case from their current one. Such a broad case should have gone through the Court of First Instance and then the High Court of Appeal before being heard by the Court of Final Appeal.

So what is the point of the exercise? GIVE MORE MONEY MORE FREQUENTLY!!!

- More Chinese insults were launched by Leung/Yau in the preamble of the press conference. Yau said (via SocREC video)

"December 13 is the date on which the Japanese army went into Nanjing. On that date, the Chinese Communists which are ruling over 1.3 billion people today remained in their base in Yan'an. They were discussing about how to gain from the war between the Kuomintang army and the Imperial Japanese Army. They sat and watched their compatriots being abused and massacred. In the end, they realized their goals. Why? Because they were willing to betray the blood of the people of China. They used the weapons that the Japanese army left behind to start a civil war. In the end, they thanked the foreign forces for invading their own homeland. The existence of the Chinese Communists is an insult to all the people of China. They are continuing the atrocities of the Japanese army. This is history. No matter how this regime denies it, it can never change history."

When your elected Legislative Councilor takes such a simplistic, narrow-minded view of Chinese history, many of his/her actions become understandable.


The Chinese Communists are the Terrorists

- That's right. Instead of being confined to their base in Yan'an prefecture, Shaanxi province, the Chinese Communists could have launched their ballistic missiles at the Japanese army as they circled Nanjing and thus stopped the massacre of 300,000 Chinese citizens. Better yet, the Chinese Communists could have launched their nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles and destroyed Tokyo, Yokohama, Osaka, Nagoya, Sapporo, Kobe, Kyoto, Fukuoka, Kawasaki, Saitama, Hiroshima and Sendai in 1937. And then there would never be an attack on Pearl Harbor. Therefore, it is all the fault of the Chinese Communists that so many people died during WWII.

- Yan'an is only about 1,200 kilometers away from Nanjing. The Chinese Communists' Shenyang J-31 jets have a maximum speed of 2,200 kilometers per hour. So those J-31's could be there in 40 minutes if only Mao Zedong was willing to send them. Therefore the Chinese Communists bear full responsibility for The Rape of Nanking.

- Yau Wai-ching was asked whether she would continue to use insulting terms such as "Shina (Chee-na)", she said that her stance has not changed. Therefore Yau Wai-ching bears full responsibility for so many Hongkongers dying during WWII.

P.S. Was it libelous to say this? Like Leung/Yau, I have sought and received legal advice that there is no basis whatsoever to find this libelous. Specifically, under Basic Law Article 27,

Article 27
Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.

I was advised that even if what I wrote was factually false, I am protected as long as I sincerely believed it at the time of writing. Thank you for your concern.

- (Wen Wei Po) December 21, 2016.

Two days ago, Leung Chung-hang posted "Reason to fight on (1)" on Facebook. He said that he and Yau Wai-ching have decided to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal after thinking about it for two weeks. He said that there are many reasons not to go further, including not having enough money; being stabbed in the back by the Court of Final Appeal; another Interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress Standing Committee; etc. "But is surrender an option? Actually, it is not hard, as long as we are willing to accept that a certain bunch of bastards can use public funds to attack those who are supposed to monitor them; as long as we are willing to accept that a certain bunch of bastards can use special privileges to amend the rules of football in the middle of the game; as long as we are willing to accept that Hong Kong is no longer Hong Kong."

Leung quoted from Hemingway's <For Whom the Bell Tolls>: "The word is a fine place and worth fight for and I hate very much to leave it." For him, Hong Kong is a fine place. Therefore he must continue to fight on. At the end of the post, he put in the link for his crowdfunding campaign.

Yesterday, Yau Wai-ching posted <Reason to fight on (2)> on Facebook. She said that she was concerned about "the decline of values." "Values are determined by society. If this case is completely lost, then all future oaths of office will be used to eliminate dissidents. The Legislative Council will be filled with pro-China people. What will you think then?" She said that an absurd process of political screening will become normal after ten years. So she says that she wants to defend Hong Kong values and then counter-attack. Of course, the post ended with the link for her crowdfunding campaign.

So what it all amounts to is $MONEY$!!! Internet users criticized the use of lousy public relations propaganda to confuse the issue. But in the end, the duo want to say that they won't repay their salaries/operating funds to the Legislative Council and that they want people to donate even more money to them. Labour Party executive committee member Kwok Siu-kit commented: "I enjoyed reading these words that came straight from the heart. But the conclusion was still 'Donate money'!"

- As usual, their panhandling Facebook posts are incomprehensible. Maybe they think that if this is good enough for a Student Union notice for persons with short attention spans, it should be good enough for the whole world. They won't listen to criticisms and they won't discuss other considerations. Maybe they have a point, but I'll be damned if I can figure it out. No wonder they are such losers!

- Stopping the "decay of Hong Kong values"? Is this a toothpaste ad or something? For one thing, it cannot be a Hong Kong core value to use an oath of office to say "Re-fucking of Shina."

- Nor saying "Don't let him leave! Kill him! Kill him!" ...

- I don't even think that they wrote these Facebook posts themselves. They must have gotten their "advisors" to do this, just like the Letter to Tsai Ing-wen.

- Am I wrong to think that Hong Kong Indigenous was going to foot all the bills for their "Plan B" Youngspiration? Are there differences of opinion now because large sums of money are involved?

- A recent news report says that Leung Chung-hung had already submitted receipts for more than $300,000 to buy five iPhone's and 11 computers for his office. Yau Wai-ching has yet to produce her receipts. Well, my company is thinking about buying five sets of iPhone 7 Plus, and 11 Macbook Air. The allotted budget was less than $200,000 based upon market price. Can Leung Chung-hang tell me how to pad up the bill at the computer store that he went to? I am willing to give half of the proceeds to his crowdfunding campaign.

- Why don't Leung-Yau try to raise money by a public auction of the iPhone's and computers? At least this shows a sincere attempt to repay the Legislative Council (which is using the public's money).

- (Oriental Daily) December 28, 2016.

On the deadline of the appeal filing, Leung and Yau showed their hand. Here are there new legal points:

First, they said that the NPCSC Interpretation included the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance. Therefore, this was an amendment and not an interpretation. As such, the amendment cannot be applied retroactively to Leung and Yau.

Secondly, they said that the court should not be interfering unless the Legislative Council president violated the rights of individual Legislative Councilors.

Thirdly, the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance does not explicitly require that "sincerity" to be a criterion to determine whether a Legislative Councilor has refused or neglected to take the oath. Nor does it explicitly say that refusal or negligence to take oath will result in disqualification.

Fourthly, the Legislative Council ordinance lists a number of situations in which a Legislative Councilor can be disqualified, but refusal/negligence to take the oath of office is not one of these.

Fifthly, under the Basic Law, the Chief Executive can only file a court case through the Secretary for Justice and cannot do so directly himself as in this case.

- The counter-arguments are only too well-known:

First, the Court of First Instance did not even need the NPCSC Interpretation to disqualify Leung and Yau. The existing Oaths and Declarations Ordinance and the Basic Law were enough.

Secondly, Leung and Yau are not Legislative Councilors until as such time when they have been sworn in. So this is a non-issue.

Thirdly, commonsense applies. No judge is going to agree with this argument.

Fourthly, same as in the second point.

Fifthly, the Chief Executive has responsibility under Article 48 Basic Law: to be responsible for the implementation of this Law and other laws which, in accordance with this Law, apply in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. How is he going to do so if he is not allowed to do so?

- If the Chief Executive cannot go through the judiciary himself when he thinks that the Legislative Council is not observing the Basic Law, he is left with only executive authority. That means sending in the Gestapo (known as the Special Branch during the British colonial era) to kick down doors and haul people away to the Black Hole of Hong Kong on Mount Davis?

- The judicial review was filed on behalf of the Chief Executive by the Secretary for Justice (abbreviated as CESJ in the court documents).

- (SCMP) December 29, 2016

The pair notified the Court of Appeal on the last day of the 28-day period in which they could file an appeal. They urged it to give them the green light to take their case to the highest court, where they can put forward legal arguments of “great general or public importance”.

According to the documents, the appeal could also centre on whether the non-intervention principle, generally applicable for legislative affairs, should extend to cover the administration of oaths by Legco. They also asked the top court to clarify the judiciary’s role in oath-taking, compared to that of the Legco oath administrator.

The pair lost their cases in the Court of First Instance and then the Court of Appeal. Both courts ruled that the judiciary would be the ultimate ­administrator of oaths as a constitutional duty enshrined in the “supreme” Basic Law that trumps the legislature’s non-intervention principle.

- This is an application for a case to be heard by the Court of Final Appeal. So they didn't have to make the deposit fee of $1.6 million until the application is approved. The deposit will have to be paid before a hearing can be held. In the interim, we should donate more money more frequently to the Justice Defence Fund for them to buy more expensive wines to relieve their mental pressures. [Sorry, the Justice Defence Fund was set up for DQ4 and not for DQ2. However, the DQ2 can apply to the JFD which may or may not approve funding.]

- This is an argument that, under this thesis of separation of powers, the Legislative Council cannot be interfered with by the executive and judicial branches. Under the same thesis of the separation of powers, the Chief Executive also cannot be interfered with by the legislative and judicial branches. So if the Chief Executive wants to say "I pledge myself to fuck up the Legislative Council" during his oath of office, the courts and the Legislative Council can do nothing about it.

- Separation of powers does not mean that the three branches each go about their own ways without interference. To prevent one branch from becoming supreme, to protect the "opulent minority" from the majority, and to induce the branches to cooperate, government systems that employ a separation of powers need a way to balance each of the branches. Typically this was accomplished through a system of "checks and balances" which allows for a system-based regulation that allows one branch to limit another.

- The Basic Law Article 104 requires legislative councilors to take an oath of office. The form and substance of the oath of office is prescribed by the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance. If, under this thesis of separation of powers, Basic Law Article 104 is void for Legislative Councilors, and the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance cannot be applied to Legislative Councilors, then the members of the executive branch are not bound either. This means that Basic Law Article 104 applies only to the judiciary, because they are (tautologically) supervised by the judiciary.

- (SCMP) The Youngspiration pair should do the right thing: disappear. By Alex Lo. December 31, 2016.

Some people just don’t know they have used up their 15 minutes of fame and then some.

It’s about time that noxious pair, Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang, be consigned to obscurity where they so richly belong. They have caused enough damage to practically all aspects of the city’s political life that, if they have any common sense and decency, they should just quit.

But no, the two have decided to throw away another few millions of dollars to launch a last-ditch appeal to get themselves reinstated as lawmakers. They have disgraced themselves many times over, not just with the scandalous way they took their oaths of office, which led two high courts to bar them from taking up their Legco seats, but their shameless disruption of Legco meetings, often with the help of pan-democratic politicians.

Now they say they are launching their bid at the Court of Final Appeal in defence of Hong Kong’s core values. What core values and how does their case, even if accepted by the top court, help defend them? These are just meaningless words from mindless people with nothing to offer but disruption for disruption’s sake. Pan-democrats like to blame Hong Kong’s divisive politics and legislative gridlock on the outgoing chief executive, Leung Chun-ying. Well, CY couldn’t have done it all by himself. He had lots of help from the pan-dems, not the least of which was their bone-headed support for Yau and Baggio Leung, at least initially. Their support only waned after they realised the general public was completely disgusted by that golden pair. Now if CY could call it a day and not run for a second term, maybe those two could take a hint and quit too.

Many factors went into CY’s decision. One was surely the lack of support that he could expect from many members of the Election Committee. But unlike his enemies, I still think there is decency to the man. So I would like to think his decision was at least partly motivated by the realisation that if he ran a second time, he would bring all the bitterness and divisiveness with him into the new government.

Could someone tell those two the best thing they could do for Hong Kong is to help moderate if not end the bitterness and divisiveness by calling it quits?

- (Oriental Daily) January 3, 2016.

Yau Wai-ching has uploaded a video about the annus horribilisr 2016 in retrospective. In a dimly lit room, Yau told us:

(1) the Hong Kong Police fired two shots into the air without any justification in Mong Kok on New Year's Day;
(2) Secretary for Education Eddie Ng blamed university students who committed suicide for not planning for their lives;
(3) the Palace Museum was decided upon without public consultation.

In summary, the Hong Kong government is destroying the rule of law and oppressing/exploiting/murdering the people of Hong Kong

- Note: Eddie Ng spoke about career planning and not about planning for their lives.

- Here are the things that didn't happen in Yau Wai-ching's world:

--- Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were elected into the Legislative Council
--- At their oaths of office, Leung called China "Shina" while Yau pledged allegiance to the "People's Re-fucking of Shina."
--- Leung/Yau traveled to Taiwan to meet with pro-independence activists
--- Leung/Yau led their aides and allies to charge at the Legislative Council in order to force a retaking of their oaths of office, thus injuring six security guards
--- The government filed a judicial review whereupon Leung/Yau were disqualified
--- The National People's Congress Standing Committee issued an Interpretation of Basic Law Article 104 to clarify what an oath of office is supposed to be
--- Leung/Yau refused to return the $1.86 million in salaries and operating funds to the Legislative Council
--- Leung/Yau are using crowdfunding to raise money for their appeal

Was this selective denial? Or collective amnesia?

- January 9th was supposed to the deadline for making the $1.6 million deposit. Without this deposit, the Court of Final Appeal will not consider the application of Leung/Yau. At the end of day on January 9th, Leung/Yau said that they have raised $550,000 through crowdfunding. Previously, they said that they owed $470,000 in legal fees already. So this leaves them with only $80,000, far short of the $1.6 million.

- What to do with the remaining $80,000? Because the crowdfunding came from a large crowd, it will be hard to refund either proportionately (everyone getting back 15% of their donations) or selectively (15% of donors get full refunds while the other 85% get nothing). So the only solution is to buy some more Moët-Chandon champagne and Glenfiddich whiskey. Thank you, guys! Happy holidays to everybody!

- Of course, the $1,860,000 from the Legislative Council cannot be commingled with the legal defense fund. [The reason escapes me at this moment, but I'll make one up eventually.]

- Rocky Yung's Facebook

Dare I make an appeal to the 27 pan-democratic legislators to donate their December salaries. Of this, $1.1 million will be given to Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching so that they can deal with the immediate need. The rest goes to the Justice Defence Fund. The Justice Defence Fund is currently only aiding Nathan Law, Lau Siu-lai, Leung Kwok-hung and Yiu Chung-yim. They should be helping all six legislative councilors in the order of events [DQ2 first, DQ4 last].

The democrats in Hong Kong, even the entire non-establishment camp, and all those citizens who support democracy in Hong Kong, cannot afford to be divided. It is unconstructive to be obsessed over who is a mole or not. The democrats represent justice, so they must act in accordance with public justice. If you are just, why should you fear being infiltrated?

- At first, it was Ray Wong who said that they are doing this because it costs them nothing. It turns out that it cost them two legislative council seats, plus the rule of law in Hong Kong. So now they want the other legislative councilors to share the costs?

- Why don't Rocky Yung and other KOL's (Key Opinion Leaders) who enabled Leung/Yau pick up the costs themselves instead? It is pathetic to see able-bodied adults of sound minds panhandle with tin cups rattling in their hands!

(Oriental Daily) December 12, 2016.

Tonight Hong Kong National Party convenor Chan Ho-tin and spokesperson Chow Ho-fai were interviewed by the press at a Taipei restaurant. Suddenly a number of people charged in and cursed the two out for "Doing Hong Kong independence and Taiwan independence," "Being Chinese traitors who are selling out their countries," etc. The two claimed to have been assaulted. They went down to the Zhongzheng Police Station to give statements. The Hong Kong National Party strongly condemned the attackers and the organizations behind them.


Chow Ho-fai and Chan Ho-tin

- (Wen Wei Po) December 14, 2016.

On the night of December 12, Chan Ho-tin, Chow Ho-fai and Taiwan New Power Think Thank executive director Chu Cheng Chi (nicknamed "the Doctor of Philosophy of Bullshit") were interviewed at Caesar's Hotel across the Taipei Train Station. Members of the Chinese Patriotic Alliance Association were sitting at the next table. When they heard what Chan Ho-tin and Chow Ho-fai said, they got up and cursed them out with :"Hong Kong independence", "Chinese traitor", "Go back to Hong Kong", etc. Chan Ho-tin and his people cursed back. A member of the Chinese Patriotic Alliance Association tossed a cup of water at Chan Ho-tin. Chu Cheung-chi tried to mediate. The Caesar's Hotel management called the police.

Later that evening, Chan Ho-tin and others accused the Chinese Patriotic Alliance Association of assault; the Chinese Patriotic Alliance Association accused Chan Ho-tin and others of saying obscene Cantonese curses. However, neither side filed charges with the police.

- (FTV with video) December 13, 2016.

At 10pm on December 12, the Chinese Patriotic Alliance Association members objected to Chan and Chow's pro-independence talk and tossed coffee and water at them. The two Hongkongers appeared to be quite hapless, with the ten or so Chinese Patriotic Alliance Association members screaming at them and filming them with mobile phones.

Chu Cheng-chi said: "The interview was completed and we were ready to leave. Suddenly two middle-aged men charged up and start ed swinging. Then came some women. Others tossed water and coffee at the two Hongkongers." The two sides continued cursing each other as they walked to the Zhongzheng Number One police station. Chu said: "There were more than a dozen of them. They followed us from the Caesar's Hotel to the Zhongzheng Number One police station. They kept cursing, they screamed 'traitors' and 'go home'. And periodically some of them came up to hit us with their umbrellas."

Hong Kong National Party convener Chan Ho-tin suffered scratches on his neck and arms, while spokesperson Chow Ho-fai was hit in the rear of the head by a shoe and an umbrella. Ever since they landed in Taiwan on December 9, they have been followed and protested against. They suspect that this assault was pre-planned. Chu Cheung-chi said: "I don't know if this was a deliberate setup. In any case, I feel that they were waiting over there. How else could they gather more than 20 people?"

Chan Ho-tin said: "The Communists are using their freedom and democracy to further their goals. Therefore a very small number of people are destroying this society. What the Taiwan authorities need to do is to punish those people in accordance with the law. Aren't they notorious already?"

Previously in March 2015, the Chinese Patriotic Alliance Association attacked Falun Gong members in front of Taipei 101 and cursed out the police. In May 2016, they clashed with the Taiwan Independence Big Flags Team in Ximending.

Previously, Chu Cheng-chi gained fame as the "Doctor of Philosophy in Bullshit" when he ate cow dung to protest the import of American beef into Taiwan.

Videos:

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/bbtauseeworld/videos/577076882489693/

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1162946707074024/

Speak Out HK @ YouTube https://youtu.be/nfVg7TPOZDA

Internet comments:

- (SpeakOut HK) Ah, yes, it is Mr. Chan Ho-tin again.

About six months ago, Chan Ho-tin appeared at a discussion forum and uttered these famous words:

「我們要與中共談判，他不肯談，就用拳頭、磚頭，打到他肯談判為止」"We want to negotiate with the Chinese Communists. If they won't talk, then we will beat them with fists and bricks until they are willing to talk."

「我認為打游擊戰更適合香港。武力會傷及無辜？我們什麼也不做的話，無辜者死得更慘，例如現在許多年輕人因受不住社會壓力而自殺。」""I think that guerilla warfare suits Hong Kong better. Will violence hurt innocent people? If we do nothing, then the innocent people will die even crueler deaths. For example, many young people are committing suicide because they can't put up with the social pressure."

When Chan Ho-tin praised violence, many people applauded his apparent valor. When Chan Ho-tin encountered violence, he rushed down to the police station to file a report against some uncles and aunties exercising their constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

- (Wen Wei Po) August 12, 2016.

The Hong Kong National Party has published a booklet to dispel certain popular misunderstandings about the feasibility of Hong Kong independence. Sample paragraph:

"A battle is not necessarily two armies facing off each other. It can be an endless number of ambushes. It may be that the family gets together to have dinner at home and then goes downstairs together to set fires to cars in the streets. They can force the People's Liberation of Army to abandon an entire district and use carpet bombing to kill everybody and destroy every building. That is one way to weaken the enemy. Everybody should let their creativity run free. There are many ways to conduct war."

When you spout nonsense like this, is it no wonder that the uncles/aunties get offended?

- Chan Ho-tin wants the PLA to bomb Kowloon Bay and kill 20,000 people. Or something like that. Then he will have the chance to address the western press to praise the martyrs of the Hong Kong Nation and denounce the barbarity of the Chinese people. The the outraged American people will force their President Trump to defeat the People's Liberation Army and install Chan Ho-tin as the (puppet) president of the Hong Kong Nation.

(Hong Kong Free Press) December 10, 2016.

Around a thousand protesters rallied in Hong Kong Saturday against a crackdown on pro-democracy lawmakers and an electoral system skewed towards Beijing ahead of elections for a new city leader. It comes a day after unpopular chief executive Leung Chun-Ying said he would not run for office again in the March vote. While jubilant at his announcement, Leung’s critics fear another hardline Beijing-backed leader will take his place.

“The direct message we hope to send to Beijing is we will not forgive and we will fight for democracy and freedom,” said Joshua Wong, who led mass pro-democracy rallies in 2014. “We will not allow Beijing to disqualify one more legislator, because they are democratically elected,” Wong, 20, told AFP at the rally, which took place in gardens in the Central commercial district.

The city’s youngest lawmaker Nathan Law, 23, who is one of the four the government are seeking to unseat, addressed the crowd saying: “We need to use our legs, our bodies, to tell the regime they can’t oppress us. They might be taking away my seat, but they are (also) imprisoning the people’s minds.”

Protest leaders also slammed the electoral system in which the chief executive is chosen by a committee of 1,200 representatives from various special interest groups weighted towards the pro-establishment camp. In 2014 Beijing said Hong Kong residents could elect their own leader but that candidates would be vetted. That decision sparked the massive 2014 rallies, which failed to win any concessions on reform.

A small group of protesters later went to Leung’s residence at Government House and popped champagne to celebrate his decision to step down.

Videos:

SocREC Part 1
SocREC Part 2

Resistance Live Media

Internet comments:

- (HKG Pao) The pan-democrats gathered at Chater Garden (Central) at 730pm to express their opposition to the government filing a judicial review to disqualify four legislators. The gathering ended at 915pm.

Although the Chief Executive CY Leung has declared that he will not run for re-election, the pan-democrats continued to use the main theme of "689's political coup is a declaration of war against the people of Hong Kong."

Legislator Lau Siu-wai said that it was a small victory to see CY Leung not running for re-election. However, CY Leung still has 7 months remaining in his term, and he would usually continue to sell out livelihood and welfare for his own future. She emphasized that the UGL incident and universal retirement plan must be pursued.

Democratic Party legislator said that four legislators may be disqualified. He called on citizens to come out and march on New Year's Day.

Legislator Chu Hoi Dick said that the Hong Kong democratic movement can only be advanced by mass mobilization such as hundreds of thousands of people coming out. But on this evening, the number of participants in this assembly was fewer than the 689 who voted for CY Leung.

Prior to this event, 20 students organizations including the Chinese University of Hong Kong Student Union issued a joint statement that the pan-democrats are political hacks. They said that this assembly intentionally ignored the two legislators who were disqualified previously (namely, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching of Younspiration). Therefore the students will not participate in tonight's assembly. They said that the pan-democrats also failed to "support" the five Legco election nominees who were disqualified by the Returning Election Officers. Instead the pan-democrats heaped scorn on the five in order to take over their voters. Therefore, the students issued "the sternest possible condemnation" of the pan-democrats.

After the assembly, one organization called on people to march to Government House. About 200 persons including Lau Siu-lai marched from Chater Garden to Government House at 925pm. When they arrived, they opened bottles of champagne and sang the song <Happiness> made famous by Paula Tsui.

-  Highlight: "On this evening, the number of participants in the assembly was fewer than the 689 who voted for CY Leung." And they had applied to the police with an estimate of 3,000.

- Live broadcast of the English Premier League games started early in the evening. So it was understandable that the number would be low.

- It must be because the weather was cold.

- No, the temperature was perfect between 18 to 23 degrees centigrade. More than 23 would be too hot; less than 18 would be too cold.

- The turnout was low because you need to have Winnie-the-Pooh's brain to come out to support the cause. Can you really say that Lau Siu-lai's oath of office was A-Okay? And that it is a coup d'état to raise an objection?

- "Oppose the re-election of CY Leung" from the Grand Alliance to Oppose CY Leung.

- Hey, the Grand Alliance also includes CY Leung because he and his family oppose his own re-election.

- Split personalities

Today: Concentrate the votes for the democrats; change the person, change the system
Last year: Say NO to fake universal suffrage

- (Oriental Daily) When the meeting began, several dozen members of Defend Hong Kong Movement marched over to the other side of Chater Garden, waving the Chinese national flag and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. They criticized the pan-democrats for promoting Hong Kong independence, opposing China and causing chaos in Hong Kong. The two sides cursed each other out through megaphones.

- Theme: "689 carries out political coup d'état to declare war on the people of Hong Kong."

With due respect, this does not make much sense.

First of all, this is not a coup d'état. CY Leung is the legal leader of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the Constitution (Basic Law). A coup d'état is the illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus. CY Leung cannot overthrow himself. What you want to say is that there has been an autocoup:

A self-coup (or autocoup, from the Spanish autogolpe) is a form of putsch or coup d'état in which a nation's leader, despite having come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances.

Secondly, it must be a first in the world for the leader to carry out an autocoup and then declare his intention not to seek re-election as leader. Why did he do it?

- The problem was that CY Leung made his announcement near the end of the business day on Friday and the assembly took place the next evening. There was no time come up with a different message on a new backdrop.

- Lau Siu Wai wants to harp on CY Leung and UGL as much as Fox News harped on Hillary Clinton and Benghazi.

- (Wen Wei Po) The declaration by CY Leung that he won't run for re-election has suddenly caused the pan-democrats to lose their target. Previously, their slogan was ABC (Anyone But CY). Now that CY is no more, they have hastily come up with a new slogan: "Change the System first before you Change the Person" for the Election Committee election.

Given that CY Leung is not running, the Chief Executive will be someone else. So it is preposterous to claim credit for Changing the Person.

As for changing the system, this is also preposterous. The sole purpose of the Election Committee is to vote on the Chief Executive under the existing system. Immediately afterwards the Election Committee will be dissolved. It is not up to the Election Committee to change the system.

By participating in the Election Committee election, the pan-democrats are implicitly accepting the system. If they really think that the existing system is bad, they should not be participating.

If the pan-democrats want to change the system first, then the only way under the Basic Law is to introduce amendments for universal suffrage to elect the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council. Under Article 159 of the Basic Law:

(1) The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress.

(2) The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region.

(3) Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views. No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong.

But everybody will remember that those who are chanting "Change the System First before you Change the Person" are the same people who vetoed the constitutional reform for universal suffrage in the election of the Chief Executive in June 2015. At the time, those people promised that they would immediately re-start the five-step process for constitutional reform. They chose not to tell people that this requires the concurrence of the Hong Kong delegates to the National People's Congress, the Chief Executive, the Legislative Council and the National People's Congress as a whole. They have no idea how to win over those other decision-makers. They haven't even tried anything (other than demonstrations like the one today). Therefore absolutely nothing has happened since.

- What is "Change the System before you Change the Person" really saying? Because you can't change the system, you will obstruct/resist/repel/revile the Chief Executive no matter who he/she is.

(Ming Pao) Editorial: The ABC of the upcoming CE election. January 16, 2017.

IT remains uncertain how many people and who will run in the upcoming Chief Executive (CE) election. That, however, does not mean that the contest lacks drama. In fact, when a call to elect ABC — anyone but CY Leung — was made in the middle of last year, the election season in effect started. As Leung will not seek re-election, this version of "ABC" has become a thing of the past. However, considering some phenomena and the political "ecology", "ABC" remains one of the focuses — or even one political demand — of the upcoming CE election. It is "Anyone But Consortiums". The "Consortiums" here means vested interests.

Citing the need to take care of his family, Leung announced that he would not seek re-election. However, many people would rather believe that Leung gave up re-election because his governance of Hong Kong had run into difficulties due to his lack of a likeable character, which affected his chances. In fact, Leung got off to a bumpy start five years ago amid the fierce competition with Henry Tang, which divided the pro-establishment camp. Between the time of his election and swearing-in, there were already people plotting and working to cause Leung to step down because of impossibility to rule. Leung has failed to respond to their animosity with tact, but has chosen to go head to head with them. As for the controversy over constitutional reform, the demands from the pan-democratic camp and the stances taken by the Beijing authorities were worlds apart, and the disagreements evolved into the Occupy movement. The whole situation went from the division of the pro-establishment camp to the division of society. Amid all this, Leung was used as a target by the opposition to take on Beijing. By opposing Leung, they have actually been opposing Beijing.

During the whole process, the operations to remove Leung and to use Leung to take on Beijing were carried out in tandem. And since Leung had too many enemies, the "ABC" demand resonated with many people quickly and led to widespread reverberations. It is impossible to ascertain whether the ABC demand was linked with vested interests. However, since the demands and actions, which resulted in Leung's downfall, were very similar, it is noteworthy what roles and functions vested interests have played in Leung's downfall.

Before Leung gave up re-election, vested interests had been closely monitoring the upcoming CE election. Some people noticed that events attended by hot favourites for the race were also attended by people who were watching and recording what was happening. Furthermore, it is not a secret in political circles that vested interests have their own preferences towards the hot favourites. In fact, had "ABC" been everything vested interests wanted, the fact that Leung was going to step down would have meant that their aim had been achieved, and they should have desisted from their campaign. But this is not what is happening. All the signs show that vested interests want more than Leung's giving up his re-election. They want to exert influence on the choice of the next CE, and make sure that their preferred candidate will be CE.

A CE election is a small-circle election. But the process is open, and it is justified if different sides try to influence the results by forming alliances as long as they comply with the law. However, it is worth our concern whether the demands of vested interests contradict the public interest.

Candidates in the upcoming election must come clean about their relationships with vested interests in order to let the public know that they are not the proxies of some people or vested interests. We are convinced that "ABC" in this sense should be an important issue in the upcoming CE election.

(SCMP) December 9, 2016.

Hong Kong’s embattled leader on Friday left the city stunned and threw next year’s chief executive election wide open by ­announcing that he would not seek a second term to spare his family “unbearable pressure”.

Eyes were glued to television screens and mouths hung open in shock as a grim-faced Leung Chun-ying told Hong Kong that he was calling it quits in a hastily arranged press conference at 3.30pm, an hour after the government gave the media a heads-up.

“If I run my family will suffer unbearable pressure due to my electioneering ... I must protect them,” he said, upending every expectation that his re-election bid for March was a done deal.

It is understood that Leung, who said he had pondered over the decision for several days, made up his mind on Thursday after consulting Beijing. That same night, he was seen at Prince of Wales Hospital in Sha Tin, where his often troubled daughter, Leung Chai-yan, was said to be receiving treatment for an unspecified ailment.

A source familiar with Beijing’s thinking said Leung’s daughter’s condition was one of the key factors that prompted the unexpected – almost unbelievable – move, but it was not the only cause.

“Mr Leung is a good candidate for the next chief executive and he always puts the interests of Hong Kong and the country as top priority,” the source said. “He had discussed with the central government the best way forward for Hong Kong. The central government has also considered how the situation in Hong Kong will develop if Leung governs Hong Kong for another five years.”

The chief executive, considered a highly polarising figure who has struggled to overcome his constantly low popularity ratings, was at pains to clarify that his decision was not due to any lack of endorsement from Beijing.

“[The central government] has always supported me and said I have done a good job,” he said.

Beijing backed that claim in a statement issued shortly after the announcement, with the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office saying it deeply regretted Leung’s decision.

“Mr Leung has steadfastly ­implemented the ‘one country, two systems’ formula and the Basic Law since taking up office, and has made important contributions in defending national sovereignty and security,” the office said. Beijing had always fully affirmed Leung’s work, it added.

Media reports that office director Wang Guangya had met Leung to persuade him not to seek re-election were ­denied by the source.

New World Development chairman Henry Cheng Kar-shun, one of Leung’s influential supporters, said he believed the chief executive’s decision had nothing to do with Beijing.

Ray Yep Kin-man, a political scientist at City University, said the announcement, which came two days ahead of polls for the Election Committee, might be due to Beijing’s intention to sway the election of the 1,200-member body that will pick the next chief executive.

“Beijing is worried about the uncertainty if pan-democrats win 300 seats in the committee and another 200 candidates who ­oppose Leung are returned,” Yep said. “With Leung’s decision not to run, the ‘Anyone But CY’ campaign will lose its momentum.”

All attention has now shifted to who stands a higher chance to take up the top job with Leung out of the picture.

“I hope to let all friends who have the intention of running know the latest situation as soon as possible, as whether they will run depends on whether I seek re-election,” Leung said.

A government source said that appeared to point to Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who has been tipped as a strong possible candidate, although she has repeatedly denied it.

Lam did not respond to media questions Friday while a spokesman for Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah, another widely tipped candidate, said he understood and respected Leung’s decision.

The pan-democratic camp reacted with excitement that its arch-enemy was no longer in the leadership race, but also vowed to “remain vigilant”.

Legislative Council president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen blamed Leung for his “zero-sum game” approach in handling the opposition.

Liberal Party stalwart James Tien Pei-chun, one of Leung’s fiercest critics, said Beijing had heeded the people’s wishes and signalled the need to build ­harmony.

(SCMP) December 9, 2016.

When Leung Chun-ying took to the stage after claiming victory in the tightly fought chief executive race in 2012 surrounded by his cheering wife, daughters and son, they appeared a picture of happiness.

On Friday, however, family was the reason Leung cited when he dropped the political bombshell that he would not seek a second term next year. In that one move, he thrust into the limelight the health of his recently hospitalised daughter Chai-yan, though he refused to divulge details of her condition.

Leung’s second child, 25, who has always been close to her father, is understood to have been a patient at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sha Tin for at least a month. Last night, Leung visited the hospital but did not speak to the media.

Chai-yan, known to be social media-savvy, did not post anything on Facebook or Instagram after her father’s “family-first” pledge on Friday.

In the chief executive’s words, it was family – not Beijing – that decided his political future.

“As a father, as a husband, I have responsibility,” Leung told a hastily-arranged media gathering at 3.30pm. “I believe Hong Kong society could elect a good chief executive ... But in my own family, my ­children only have one father, my wife only has one husband.”

Chai-yan’s health first became a matter of ­concern when she posted what looked like a wrist-slashing picture on Facebook in mid-2014, with the caption: “Will I bleed to death?”

Within days, the chief executive and his wife flew to London where she was studying. A picture of them with Chai-yan in Hyde Park, apparently released by Leung’s office, laid bare the family ­troubles within Government House.

Speaking to Chinese media, Chai-yan dismissed the picture leaked to the media, saying: “I was manipulated to go to Hyde Park and play happy ­family as a lame PR stunt by my father.”

She also resorted to Facebook to channel her grievances against her mother, Regina Leung Tong Ching-yee, saying in July 2014 that she “embodies the exact opposites” of courage and loyalty.

In 2015, she gave an interview with Cable TV’s entertainment news channel, breaking the first family protocol and exposing Leung’s private side. Her parents, she said, judged her friends superficially. “When my classmates organised birthday parties at the Jockey Club’s ballroom, I was not allowed to go.”

Another nightmare for the family, though, was to come during Halloween last year. Dressed up as a ghost in white with heavy makeup, Chai-yan walked around Lan Kwai Fong with her mother.

Boarding a cab, she suddenly slapped her mother’s face twice, telling the media scrum: “You know this mum is not actually my biological mum?”

Chai-yan was not the only child who faced media scrutiny. Her younger sister, Chung-yan, was ­embroiled in the notorious luggage saga in April.

When she was about to board a flight, Chung-yan found she had forgotten her carry-on bag. Contrary to the usual rule requiring the passenger to leave the restricted area and take her own belongings, Chung-yan gave her phone to an airport staffer, with the chief executive on the other end of the line. The incident, dubbed luggage-gate, raised questions about abuse of power, a charge he flatly denied.

His family would face “unbearable pressure” if he were to run again, he said on Friday, a stunning turnaround from his interview with the Post in June. Asked then if they would rather he not remain in the hot seat, he said: “No, not at all. They know ... Hong Kong is being rewarded.”

Internet comments:

- CY Leung isn't running for re-election because he wants to spend more time with his family? Do you believe that? For reference: Washington Post.

- (The Virtual Linguist)

Spending time with the family is the favorite euphemism of politicians who:

(a) fear they are about to be sacked,

(b) have major disagreements with the president/prime minister on policy (and thus fear they are about to be sacked)

(c) expect to lose their marginal seat in the next election and thus jump first (it gives them more time to find a cushy corporate directorship) or

(d) are about to have an illicit affair made public.

- Because "spending more time with his family" is so clichéd and generates an automatic negative association, it should be avoided even if it is the truth.

- Why was the announcement made on Friday at 3:30pm? Because the Election Committee elections will be held on Sunday, and many pan-democratic candidates are running on a single issue of "Anyone But CY." Now that CY won't be in, what happens to their campaigns?

- The immediate response was to say: (1) CY Leung may be lying about his intentions and he will actually enter the election at a later date. Therefore we must be vigilant and vote to support all those are campaigning on "ABC". (2) CY Leung may be telling the truth, but it only means that there will be another similar. Therefore we should be vigilant and vote for "ABX" ("Anybody But X").

- (Bastille Post) The official reason for CY Leung not entering the Chief Executive election is that his family pressures were getting to be too much. But there are deeper reasons. About six months ago, it was rumored that the Central Government will pick their preferred candidate in September. But the decision was delayed further and further. It was even said that the decision will be made after the Election Committee elections this weekend. All the hand-wringing comes down to one issue: Will CY Leung be able to get 601 votes to get elected? If CY Leung should run against John Tsang and be elected with fewer than 601 votes in the first round, then things will get out of control.

Whether CY Leung backed off on his own, or the Central Government made him back off is irrelevant to the main issue of the uncertainty of getting the 601 votes. According to an informed source, the Central Government has a full plan to which CY Leung is giving his full cooperation. And this is the outcome.

The Chief Executive will be a battle between the Central Government's preferred candidate against someone not approved by the Central Government. It will be a competitive election.

- (Bastille Post) Who is the preferred Chief Executive in the eyes of the Central Government? An authoritative source said: "The last name of the preferred candidate is not Tsang." That would take out Secretary of Finance John Tsang and former Legislative Council president Jasper Tsang. The authoritative source said that the preferred candidate will emerge shortly.

- (Bastille Post) The media had been speculating on a battle between CY Leung and John Tsang. Now that CY Leung has withdrawn, does that make John Tsang the odds-on favorite? Is it time to bet heavily on Tsang? This is not so.

I believe that the Chief Executive election will be a situation in which a Soft Person comes up against a Hard Person. The Soft Person is someone who tries to placate citizens. They want high popular ratings and they don't care too much about the wishes of the Central Government. Specifically, they won't be interested in cracking down on the Hong Kong independence movement. The Hard Person is someone who sticks closer to the Central Government's line, and will rigorously crack down on Hong Kong independence.

The obvious Soft Person is John Tsang first, followed by Japser Tsang next. Both of these are excellent experts in manipulating public opinion.

As for the Hard Person, CY Leung would be ranked first. Now that CY Leung is out, the rest of the list contains Chief Secretary Carrie Lam, Executive Council member and HKU Council president Arthur Li Kwok-cheung and Executive Council member and Legislative Councilor Regina Ip.

The Central Government wants a Hard Person to suppress Hong Kong independence and to deal with the complicated international situation. If CY Leung won't run, the Central Government isn't going to pick a Soft Person. Instead they will want another Hard Person to run. The Central Government is still in control of the situation with an adjustment.

Nobody can guarantee that the Central Government's choice will win. But if the opposition campaigned on ABC (Anyone But CY), they will find it awkward to amend this to ABC plus NO EFG. If you think that all the problems of Hong Kong are due to that ONE MAN, you are now going to have ONE WOMAN (Carrie Lam or Regina IP).

In any case, now that PLAN A (CY Leung) is out of the picture, the new and improved PLAN B will actually increase the chances of victory for the Central Government.

- (HKG Pao) Recently the Central Government declared a new qualification for Chief Executive: take powerful action to stop the Hong Kong independence movement. Please note: "powerful action" as opposed to muddling around. John Tsang tried to establish his credentials on this qualification by telling the Legislative Council that he will not reply to the questions from the four Legislative Councilors whose statuses are under judicial review. This was a kindergarten-level political error which revealed the shallowness of Tsang's political wisdom. He has done nothing for ten years; but the first time that he did something, it was a bomb.

The reporters kept asking Tsang whether he had been set up. Actually, it is his mouth, and he and only he controls what comes out of it. He is sixty-something-years old already, and he should know what to do and say for himself.

In so doing, John Tsang seems to have forgotten the most important qualification that the Central Government wants: loyalty. The Central Government told John Tsang: "Don't run for election. You are not qualified." Tsang is apparently ignoring the message and going full steam ahead. As Tsang's own maxim says "You always agree with your boss," but he has ignored the first recommendation from the boss. Who wants to hire such an employee?

-  (Oriental Daily) There are four Plan B candidates. They are all flawed in their own ways. The Central Government's favorite will emerge soon enough from elsewhere.

John Tsang: It is an open secret that he wants to run. It is rumored that he has tendered his resignation, recruited former government officials for his campaign and rented an office. His problems are that he is too close to the real estate property magnates just like Henry Tang was, that he served as former British governor Chris Patten's private secretary and that he was too close to the indicted former Chief Executive Sir Donald Tsang. Recently, many of Tsang's actions (redistribution of income; increase in social welfare payments; land development (Wang Chau)) have been at odds with the government as a whole because he was more keen on his personal ambitions. The Central Government cannot trust him.

Regina Ip: She has indicated her candidacy many times before and will make a formal announcement next Thursday. Although she has the support of many former government officials and current public servants, her popularity among the population as a whole may even be worse than CY Leung.

Jasper Tsang: He has previously said that he would run if nobody else does. As Legislative Council president, he has been regarded to be biased against the government on behalf of the pan-democrats. Jasper Tsang is regarded as PLAN B for John Tsang, with backing from real estate property magnates. So the Central Government won't support him either.

Carrie Lam: Although she has said that she will retire on July 1, 2017, there is a chance that she may change her mind now that CY Leung is not running. She can get the support of the CY Leung camp plus some members of the Henry Tang camp. But she does not seem to have the will and fire to want to become Chief Executive.

- Well, what does it better who becomes Chief Executive? Who cares if it is John Tsang, Regina Ip, Jasper Tsang, Carrie Lam, Rita Fan, Woo Kwok-hing, Albert Ho, Alan Leong, Audrey Eu, Leung  Kwok-hung, Joshua Wong, Eddie Chu Hoi Dick, whatever? The reality is whoever gets elected (whether pro-establishment, pro-democracy, pro-independence, middle-of-the-road) will face an opposition camp that will do everything possible to derail everything.

- And they can also expect that their families will be harassed from now until the end of time:

(SCMP) June 26, 2015.

The daughter of a former minister has recalled her struggle in coming to terms with the public criticism levelled at her mother, saying she empathised with the chief executive's daughter - who sparked concern for her well-being after photos of what appeared to be a slashed wrist appeared on her Facebook page.

Cynthia Ip, the 24-year-old daughter of former security minister Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee, said the pictures posted by Leung Chun-ying's daughter Chai-yan, 22, reminded her of her unhappy experiences growing up.

In 2003, the senior Ip came in for fierce criticism for pushing the government's ill-fated national security bill in 2003. "I was only 12, 13 years old so I didn't have as much access to social media platforms," she said. "But anyone would be unhappy if his or her parent were criticised.

"I had arguments with schoolmates on current affairs, and was particularly saddened when I overheard someone calling my mum 'Broom-head' when we were shopping at Times Square," she recalled, referring to a nickname given to Regina Ip because of her hairstyle. "I decided then to step away from things I could not control."

Leung Chun-ying's UK-based elder daughter Chai-yan posted the photographs on Tuesday. The chief executive was flying to Britain when the post, open to the public, came to light.

Yesterday, he attended the graduation of his younger daughter, Leung Chung-yan, at Cambridge University. He later uploaded a picture onto his blog of him, his wife and their three children. He returns to Hong Kong tonight.

- (Bastille Post) In the statement from the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, the ending was: "We hope that CY Leung will finish his work in the remainder of his term, and to continue to be useful in the development of Hong Kong and China." This is a hint that CY Leung will be appointed a vice-chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. This is an esteemed and influential post, and not merely a honorary one.

Not all past Chief Executives are automatically appointed to that post. The first Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa was so appointed. The second Chief Executive Donald Tsang was not. So this is an indication of the approval of CY Leung by the Central Government.

- CY Leung used his family as the reason for not running for re-election. His chances of re-election were not bad, especially since his 45-minute meeting with President Xi Jinping showed that he has the ability to manage crises. So why wasn't he needed? He had to ask the Central Government for permission. If he was the sole candidate, he would be asked to stay on irregardless of his family situation, because the good of Hong Kong is the greater good.

So there are three reasons. Firstly, the pan-democratic legislators are newbies who do not offer strong challenges; secondly, Hong Kong independence has been forced out of mainstream politics; thirdly, the Central Government will intervene directly in Hong Kong, so that they don't need a strong surrogate anymore. Given Xi Jinping's strong line in mainland China, he is not going to slack in Hong Kong.

As to what is the favorite, Regina Ip seems to have a better chance because she has shown the will to introduce Article 23 and the Central Government trusts her. She is also familiar with government operations. So this Christmas may be the happiest one ever for Regina Ip.

- Keyvin Wong's Facebook


A while ago, wise persons said: "Leung Chung-yan and Yau Wai-ching were objectively helping CY Leung to get re-elected.

Kidd Ho's Facebook


Fuck your mother! Just because CY Leung is leaving does not mean those two bastards did not help him. It only means that they were not able to carry it off. If they don't even know how to fawn on CY Leung, then Leung/Yau must be fucking useless. They should be buried along with their pals and aides.

- Sze Tat Chau's Facebook

The "pan-democrats" shout "ABC" everyday, and they want to the "kingmaker." But now CY Leung says that he is out. So the pan-democrats can pack up and go home! Since they want ABC so much, they are going to get Ms. Broom-head:

We are ready for the first female Chief Executive of Hong Kong.

- "I Am Hongkonger" Facebook

We don't the female version of "689"
The people of Hong Kong do not want "R. IP".
Please share if you agree.

- Radio 881

Legislative Councilor Nathan Law said that even though CY Leung announce that that he won't seek re-election, there is still the possibility of either lying or reneging. Therefore Nathan Law wants to send out positive messages to people. At the same time, he is worried that the government will continue to suppress those Legislative Councilors who advocate resistance.

Legislative Councilor Lau Siu-lai demanded that not only there be a new Chief Executive, but also a new system. She said that CY Leung's term still has more than six months to do and he may yet create havoc. Therefore the people must keep going after him.

Legislative Councilor Chu Hoi Dick said that the Democracy Movement is in the doldrums in Hong Kong, as the Umbrella Movement is sagging. At present the true crisis is not about who becomes the Chief Executive, but about whether the Legislative Council will continue to become a battleground for the people of Hong Kong to gain democracy. Therefore defending the Legislative Council will the most important battle for the Democracy Movement.

- I am surprised and shocked that none of these people got to the main point: Donate more money more frequently to us! We need to be vigilant against the second coming of CY Leung! They must be rookies in this business of money-grubbing.

- (Apple Daily) Apple Daily has obtained exclusive information. On the evening of the day before yesterday, CY Leung made a sudden trip to Shenzhen to meet Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office director Wang Guangya. Leung did not know the purpose of the meeting. He actually thought that the Central Government was going to give him the green light to enter the Chief Executive election.  Instead, Wang Guangya told him that the Central Government does not want him to run for re-election.

(Bastille Post) Some media outlets are reporting that Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office director Wang Guangya traveled personally to Shenzhen to deliver the news to CY Leung. But according to an informed source, Wang Guangya was attending a National Higher Education Conference in Beijing at the time. He was even photographed in the associated news report from the Central News Agency (Taiwan). Therefore Wang Guangya could not be simultaneously present in Shenzhen and Beijing. The fact is that CY Leung went to Shenzhen after his press conference, not before.

- Why this obsession about in-person meeting to deliver important messages? Have they heard of the invention known as the telephone?

- It is true that people like Gregory Wong are making videos to celebrate the departure of CY Leung. But I am pessimistic about the future. We have a situation in which a hardliner CY Leung was told by the Central Government to quit because the Hong Kong independence movement was growing under his watch. So I expect now that the new Chief Executive will be an ultra-hardliner. At a minimum, we can expect to see Article 23 being realized. And I hate to imagine what else.

- Some Hong Kong people are getting ecstatic because they have just achieved a stage victory in the long race to Democracy. But if you think that this came about because the people of Hong Kong forced Beijing to ditch CY Leung, you should quickly go visit a doctor and get treatment.

- (Kinliu)

What were the pan-democrats looking for in the upcoming Chief Executive election? All along they kept saying ABC (Anyone But CY). This meant that anyone/anything (even a dog or a pony) other than CY Leung will do. Now that CY Leung says that he won't run again, the pan-democrats should be very satisfied. They can boast all around that they "successfully forced CY Leung to quit." So they will put down all the disputes and settle down to vote for a Chief Executive of their voice. Right?

No. The pan-democratic convener James To said that while many citizens are delighted, including some who think that they have achieved a stage victory, they will continue to gather public opinion to prevent the Central Government from selecting another CY Leung. Civic Party legislator Alvin Yeung said that even if CY Leung is gone, there could be a Regina Ip.

Thus, the pan-democrats have just given up ABC (Anyone But CY). Instead, they won't allow Anyone Who Is Another CY Leung and they want Anyone But Regina Ip. In the end, the only Chief Executive acceptable is whomever James To and Alvin Yeung approve. All other candidate are Another CY Leung and/or Just Regina Ip and therefore not acceptable.

Of course, James To and Alvin Yeung deny that this is the case. They said that they don't need to anoint anyone if the citizens can have one-person-one-vote. If and when that happens, the pan-democrats will gladly accept the people's choice. Well, if the pan-democrats did not veto the 2015 constitutional reform, we can have one-person-one-vote for the Chief Executive in 2017 already. By their veto, they deprived 3 million+ citizens of their right to vote.

- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. December 20, 2016.

A number of anti-CY people adamantly refuse to accept that CY decided on his own not to run for re-election. Subconsciously, they feel that he must have been fired by "Grandpa." So they reported that Wang Guangya, Zhang Dejiang, Li Chaoyuan or even Yang Jiechi met secretly with CY Leung in Shenzhen to give him the "order to withdraw."

The mainland official media quickly clarified that the aforementioned Central Government officials were all busy in Beijing and never traveled south during this time period. So another exclusive report has some out that Xi Jinping sent a secret envoy to Hong Kong and personally delivered the secret order to CY Leung. This order is a handwritten note which contained only four words: "到此為止" (End it here and now).

With respect to this latest variation, I have this to say: Dear Friend, you have been watching too many martial arts movie in which the Emperor sends his secret envoys to deliver secret orders in note form. We live in the 21st century now, and we have something called a telephone!

- (YZZK) January 1, 2017 edition.

Over the past several years, people frequently told me this or that about CY Leung in all earnestness. I would ask: "Do you  know him?"

"No." This was the answer ten times out of ten times.

I am not trying to be difficult. I am genuinely curious. Why do so many people hate a person whom they have never met? It is as if this guy had killed their father.

"He has bad looks. Because he has bad looks. He looks deceitful and evil ..."

"Everybody has his own own views. Other people say that he is well-poised." I said.

"He tells lies ..."

"Such as?"

"He said that he did not have an illegal structure inside his house, but he did."

"What did he build illegally?"

"A gardening shed. Even though it was a small gardening shed, an illegal structure is an illegal structure."

"That's correct. The question is whether it is necessary to persecute him and his entire family over a small gardening shed?"

"He is a Communist Party member ..."

"He denied that a long time ago."

"He lied. He is an underground party member."

"How do you know?"

"Seeto Wah said so."

"Where is the proof?"

"You cannot prove anyone is an underground party member ... besides he is corrupt ... UGL ..."

"What money did he take? Can you explain what UGL is about?"

By this point, the other party is usually tongue-tied. So they concluded with: "Anyway, he is a bad person!" So I repeated the cycle with: "Do you know him? How do you know that he is a bad person?"

Over the past five years, the media have done their part in the character assassination of CY Leung, so that many Hongkongers hate him inexplicably. But when you try to track down the source, you can never find the original material.

I know CY. In 1998, he was the secretary-general for the Basic Law Consultative Committee. He didn't know me, because I was just a summer part-time helper at the office. I was a student intern responsible to newspaper clippings. Occasionally I got to enter the conference room to help out. The attendees were the elites from mainland China and Hong Kong. The speed, decisiveness and precision of CY Leung's leadership impressed this student intern a great deal.

My memory was that CY did not show up at the office every day. At the time, he was the youngest partner in the 200-year history of the LaSalle Partners, and he went between the two locations. Each time he shows up, the entire office livened up.

I have never seen CY Leung curse anyone out. Perhaps we were scolded often by the out-spoken Shiu Sin-po, we all looked forward to seeing CY Leung.

Later I became a reporter. CY Leung was active in politics by then. I did not cover politics, but I have heard stories about him. The most classical one is that when he attends the meetings of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in Beijing, he often left the meeting, flew back to Hong Kong immediately to take care of business, flew back early the next morning to continue the meeting. CY Leung also paid for his airfares out of his own pocket. We were impressed when we heard about that. But some people were upset, because CY Leung had set a bad example. How else could anyone claim travel expenses from then on?

More than twenty years later, I came across CY Leung again when he got ready to run for Chief Executive. Two years ahead of time, he began to research public opinions. I gave him some opinions on education. Later I helped him with election publicity, and I conducted some in-depth interviews with CY Leung, his wife, his sister, his good friends and his fellow students. Through the eyes of other people, I got very different perspectives of CY Leung.

His secondary school alumnus and former Weather Observatory director Lam Chiu-ying said that Tin Shui Wai had just become know as the City of Tragedy after certain unfortunate incidents. So CY Leung led a group of professionals to Tin Shui Wai and took more than a hundred children to Central. Each child was paired with a professional who showed his office and explained his work, so that the children know what lawyers, surveyors and accountants do for a living. This gave some hope to a group of children who never traveled outside of Tin Shui Wai/Yuen Long before. They did all this without earning a cent, and the media never reported it. Lam Chiu-ying said, "I can think of no motive other tender loving care."

When CY Leung became Chief Executive, I only see CY Leung at dinners. Each time, it was always an AA system in which the bill was split evenly so that nobody owes anyone else anything. CY has a particular style. He will eat everything on his own plate, including the decorative vegetables on the side. He instructed the waiter to give him anything that other people won't eat. Anyone who is so much against wastage cannot be an evil person.

A mediocre person won't involve jealousy within others. Given how the opposition attacked him over the years, CY Leung was anything but mediocre.

During his term, the phrase "property hegemony" went into disuse. Instead, more than 92,000 private housing units and 97,000 public housing units were completed. There were also measures at poverty relief, subsidies for the elderly and the vulnerable, moderate inflation, full employment, the double NO parents, the restriction on purchasing infant milk formula, one-visit-per-week individual visits, raising property stamp duties, starting the Innovation and Technology Bureau, free kindergarten, $2 dollar fare for those over age 65 on public transportation ...

Because my admiration for him was established a long time and I also saw what he had to put up with, my views of him are different from others. But even after I tell my friends about my views, they still say: "He is very evil. He is only pretending to be good ..." What can I say? Rumors are like a fatal stab of the sword.

If you do even better, not everybody will like you; if you do even more, not everybody will like you. Somewhere I remember reading: "The eagle does not require applause because it knows how to fly; the grass does not require pity because it knows how to grow." You don't have to please everybody on everything. It is enough that you bear no qualms and have a clean conscience. CY has a clean conscience towards the people; he has a clean conscience towards our times.

- (Bastille Post) December 24, 2016.

There is one popular saying that CY Leung was ordered not to run for re-election because he had too belligerent. Leung not only disqualified Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, but he went after four more legislators. This went far beyond what Xi Jinping wanted. Therefore Leung was forced out.

Thus read your Apple Daily editorial of the day: "From the reports in the pro-Xi newspapers and Internet media outlets, the Chinese Communist Party is not satisfied with Leung's belligerence, ultimately making him give up re-election with an excuse similar to Tung Chee-hwa's sore foot. The China Liaison Office and the Hong Kong Macau Affairs Office are equally culpable. Although the Leung fans said that the line of action will continue even if Leung is gone and Carrie Lam said so too, mainstream public opinion in Hong Kong does not think so. Changing the person without changing the route cannot mend the rifts in Hong Kong society. The person who carries out Leung's route cannot be a representative of soft power for Hong Kong."

Yesterday Xi Jinping met with CY Leung in Beijing. Apart from saying the usual positive things about Leung, Xi added that he approved of how Leung worked to stop Hong Kong independence and violent street actions. This is a huge slap in the face of those who said that "Xi criticized Leung for being too belligerent" and "Xi does not want suppress the Hong Kong independence movement severely."

Reporters love to ask questions. Here is a good opportunity to ask a question: For all those candidates who have been privately telling people that the Central Government wants to change the policy, they can ask: "Chairman Xi said that the Hong Kong independence movement and the street violence must be stopped. Will you do so if elected?"

(Hong Kong Free Press) December 8, 2016.

A letter containing a death threat and a blade has been sent to Youngspiration politician Baggio Leung Chung-hang. Leung wrote that “I have seen this on TV a lot, but I have never expected that this would happen to me one day.”

The letter, which was poorly rendered in simplified Chinese, read: “Ask your parents to cook you something good, you will not have long to live – whomever is anti-communist, [we] will kill you, you must die!” It was signed by an “underground party red army warrior.”

Leung wrote on Facebook asking the sender to “please write in clearer handwriting and do not use simplified characters, otherwise the one you are threatening will not be able to understand your threat.” Leung said he was concerned for himself and his family, asking those who were threatening him to target him only, and not his family.

The last line of the letter read: “You must report this to the police.” Leung wrote that he was still considering whether to do so or not.

Internet comments:

- (Wen Wei Po) December 9, 2016.

- Leung Chung-hang has no remaining value left -- no political following and no money. Who is going to do something that is valueless?

- Frankly, what value do you have such that someone would threaten you? ... You are a wastrel already, so it makes no sense! The razor was wasted.

- Please, you animal, citizens won't waste the money on the razor and stamp on you. STOP PLAY-ACTING ANYMORE!

- You don't want to file a police report, because filing a false report is a felony.

- In Taiwan, Chen Shui-bian at least hired someone to shoot at him in order to gain the public sympathy to win the presidential election. In Hong Kong, you already took $930,000 in salary and subsidies from the Legislative Council but all you want to spend is for a razor, an envelop, a piece of paper and a stamp?

- Why would Leung Chung-hang fear someone coming at him with a razor. At the Sai Wan demonstration, he showed us that he can outsprint all other demonstrators plus the Special Tactical Unit of the Hong Kong Police to grab a taxi and leave the scene. http://news.tvb.com/local/581f7e066db28cb3572f497a. So if someone comes at him with a razor, he is going to run away easily. So there is nothing to worry about here.

- Dear Baggio Sixtus "Taxi" Leung Chung-hang, your credibility has reached the bottom of the pit. Whether this letter is real or not, you won't be able to derive any political benefits. You can help yourself best by going into the hiding and not remind people that you ever existed.

- Oy vay! Once again, we have the existential dilemma of whether to file a police report or not.

If you believe that the Hong Kong Police are the poodles running errands for the Chinese Communist grandpas, then it is a waste of time.

If you believe that the Hong Kong Police are serving to protect citizens and properties, then why are you throwing bricks at them?

- You're upset with a threatening letter with a razor blade? Where were you when these other incidents took place:

- (SCMP) August 6, 2016.

The fallout from the disqualification of a localist leader seeking to run in next month’s Legislative Council elections took a worrying turn on Saturday when the returning officer responsible for it got a threatening letter with a razor blade enclosed.

The force did not name the election officer targeted in the letter with the blade, only confirming that a woman reported receiving the threat at her Sha Tin office on Sheung Wo Che Road.

That is the address of Cora Ho Lai-sheung, the returning officer who invalidated Hong Kong ­Indigenous member Edward Leung Tin-kei’s candidacy for the polls, to be held on September 4.

“The letter contained words that constitute a threat,” police said, without providing further details. “The case is classified as one of criminal intimidation after a preliminary inquiry. No arrest has been made.

- (The Standard) August 19, 2016.

Two returning officers who disqualified four localists from running in the Legislative Council elections next month have been threatened again - they received threatening letters and "hell money" in their office mail. Cora Ho Lai-sheung for the New Territories East constituency, whose office is on Wo Che Road in Sha Tin, and Alan Lo Ying-ki for New Territories West, on Hing Fong Road in Kwai Chung, received mail containing their pictures with a Chinese character "dead" in red and "hell money."

Police said they received the report and listed the case as "request police assistance." No one has been arrested. Officers from the New Territories South regional crime squad are investigating.

It is the third time Ho has been threatened in two weeks. She disqualified prominent localist and Hong Kong Indigenous spokesman Edward Tin-kei, saying she "did not believe Leung was sincere in changing his political stance." She also disqualified localist James Chan Kwok-keung as a independent Legco candidate.

Ho received a threatening letter with a razor blade enclosed on August 6. Four days later she received a threatening letter with some white powder, claimed to be a mixture of HIV/AIDS, anthrax and semen. Police later confirmed that it was flour.

- (The Standard) September 7, 2016.

The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong's Elizabeth Quat's office at the Legislative Council complex was sealed off after she received a letter with suspicious white powder. Police sent a bomb squad to Legco.

Quat's office was sealed off for investigation after she received the letter with suspicious white powder. Police said the powder was believed to be flour after preliminary investigation. The case was classified as suspicious object found. The letter contained printed insulting words with no names.

Police received the report at around 3pm yesterday. No arrest had been made and the case is under investigation by the Central Police District. "Hong Kong is a city under rule of law," Quat said. "It is not acceptable for anyone to express opinions through threats."

- (Oriental Daily) December 20, 2016.

On December 19, 2016, 17-year-old Chan Ho-man pleaded guilty to one count of conducting an assault that resulted in an injury during the Mong Kok riot. Chan said that he went down to offer his support and did not plan any violence. Once he got there, he was affected by the atmosphere and threw a brick that hit a policeman on the knee. The magistrate Heung Shuk-han remanded Chan in custody pending probation reports for sentenching.

On the morning of December 20, magistrate Heung Shuk-han received a package delivered to the courthouse. When she opened it, she found a 5-inch box cutter inside. She immediately told the court to call the police.

Hong Kong government officials, judges and pro-establishment politicians receive threatening letters containing razor blades, white powder (alleged to be AIDS/anthrax) and human/canine feces all the time. Do they stop going downstairs to buy a can of soda at the convenience store? Do they demand 24-hours-a-day round-the-clock police protection?

- (Wen Wei Po) December 9, 2016.

... This whole thing is highly suspicious. It is clearly a farce staged by Leung Chung-hang. If it were really so dangerous, then why didn't he file a police report? Why did he only make a post on Facebook? What is the clown most afraid of on stage? That the audience doesn't care or react. Therefore the clown has to keep staging further acts in order to get the audience to laugh. But at this point, not even a White Terror farce is going to change the ending for Leung.

The so-called threatening letter is preposterous in itself. What "Underground Party" is this? What "warrior" is this? It is incomprehensible. A normal person would have tossed away this so-called "threatening letter." In the past, many pro-establishment legislators have received a large number of these "threatening letters" signed by "Democracy warriors", "The Butcher of Hong Kong", Japanese right-wing organizations, etc. This one is nothing extraordinary. Only Leung Chung-hang wants to make it an Internet cause célèbre and declare this to be a grave threat to him and his family.

Why did Leung Chung-hang stage this White Terror farce? Because he wants to reacquire public attention. After the oath brouhaha, he has been completely wiped out. He lost his legislator position, he lost public opinion support, he lost his reputation, he lost everything. His crowdfunding campaign went nowhere. If this continues, he is going to be drained dry. Therefore, he is using this "threatening" letter to gain public sympathy about the plight of him and his family.

- Wen Wei Po is insisting that the letter is fake unless Leung Chung-hang files a police report. And if Leung files the police report, he will be conceding that he needs the Hong Kong Police under the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China to guarantee his personal safety under Hong Kong Basic Law Article 28.

- PLEASE! This letter was written shoddily. Leung Chung-hang made the point that the letter was written in the simplified Chinese characters used in mainland China, thus implying that he is being threatened by mainlanders. For example, the word "party" is written in the simplified character "党" as opposed to the traditional character "黨".

In truth, the letter contains a mix of simplified and traditional characters. For example, the word for 'several' is written in the traditional character "幾" and not the simplified character "几". This would support the theory that the letter was written by someone who knows only how to write a few simplified characters but not completely versed in the system. You don't have to be a police investigator to figure out this much.

Even when you give them what you think is a simple exercise, they always find a way to bungle it up.

- There are online tools (example) that allow you to traverse instantaneously between simplified and traditional characters. But tools are useless if you don't use them.

- (Oriental Daily) On December 9, Yau Wai-ching posted on Facebook that she received the same threatening letter from "Old Red Army/Underground Party."

Whereas Leung Chung-hang's letter was addressed to "Anti-Communist Person: _____" with the name not filled in, Yau Wai-ching's letter was addressed to "Anti-Communist Person: Chicken". Chicken is the colloquial term for "Paid Prostitute."

(Wen Wei Po) December 9, 2016.

Previously, Leung Chung-hang read his Legco oath of office in English and pronounced "China" as "Shina (Chee-na)." He gave the excuse that this was due to his Ap Lei Chau accent. To date, he has not apologized.

A 40-second video has been posted onto the Internet. In the video, Leung Chung-hang is walking down the street wearing a grey hoodie with the hood over his head. Several middle-aged men and women shouted "Real running dog" at him. "Do you think that you look suave?" They clapped and said: "You are not longer a Legislator." They demanded that he refund the money that he has taken so far. During the whole time, Leung played with his mobile phone and did not respond to these people.

In response to media inquiries, Leung Chung-hang said that the incident took place two weeks ago shortly after the oath of office.

(Video) (Video) Leung Chung-hang is surrounded by a bunch of aunties shouting: "Shina dog! Real running dog!"

Internet comments:

- This is not the first time, nor will it be the last time. Here is an earlier incident:

(Oriental Daily with video) November 2, 2016.

This video taken by some aunties went viral on the Internet. The aunties followed Leung Chung-hang down the street, shouting: "Hey, hey, Shina! Turn yourself around, Shina!" When Leung turned around, the auntie said: "We welcome you, Shina boy!" Leung replied, "How are you?" Then he ignored the auntie and lowered his head to fiddle with his mobile telephone. The auntie proceeded to curse him: "Despicable!" "Running dog!" "Bastard", "Pok gai", "Inhuman", etc.

Soon the aunties were joined by other people around the scene. "Oh, he is the one who called us Shina!" "Pok gai!" Leung said: "Go ahead and scold!" He almost ended up in a physical fight with those present. But since he was outnumbered, he turned around and ran. But he raised his middle finger in order to claim moral victory.

- Unfortunately for Leung Chung-hang, his ugly face is easily identifiable in public. As soon as he appears, everybody is going to know that it's HIM. He would have to undergo major cosmetic surgery to avoid recognition. Meanwhile, his partner-in-crime Yau Wai-ching has the Mong Kok look of thousands of other young women. So it is harder to detect her presence in public.

- Edward Leung is also readily identifiable because of his weirdo hairstyle, with or without the recent bloating of his body.

- Leung Chung-hang is a young man, so we should all back off and take it easy on him.

- But did he ever back off and take it easy on the people of Hong Kong? Why did he do all these things to push Hong Kong into the abyss?

- The court is lenient when the defendant shows remorse. Have Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching shown any sign of remorse over saying "Re-fucking of Shina"? No. There you have it.

- It is time for the American/British/Japanese/Australian/Canadian/German consulates to step forth and defend the freedom of speech of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching!

- It is time for the people of Hong Kong to step forth and defend the freedom of speech of the uncles and aunties shown in the videos!

- When Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching said "Shina" during their oaths of office, they did not think that they are offending anyone. The problem with young people nowadays is that they grow up in a virtual world. The information that they get tend to be monochromatic. They are incapable of listening to and assessing dissenting opinions. They can live in this virtual world forever -- until they run into the real world. Thus, Leung Chung-hang has now found out from his encounters with the "Ngau Tau Kok housewives 牛頭角順嫂" just what real people think.

(SCMP) December 2, 2016.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying launched an all-out legal offensive against the pro-democracy camp on Friday, moving to have four more of its lawmakers disqualified over improper oath-taking.

His latest targets accused Leung of “staging a coup” to overturn election results and “score” with Beijing for a possible second term, but the justice minister insisted the bid to have them kicked out of the Legislative Council was “free of political consideration”.

Their supporters marched from Legco to the Chief Executive’s Office last night to protest, while civic groups are planning a bigger rally on New Year’s Day.

The government announced on Friday that it had “commenced legal proceedings” against veteran activist “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, former Occupy student leader Nathan Law Kwun-chung, academic Edward Yiu Chung-yim and lecturer Lau Siu-lai, asking the High Court to declare their oaths invalid and their Legco seats vacant. None of them have advocated Hong Kong independence, although Law and Lau have called for self-determination.

The government’s move came two days after an appeal court upheld the lower court’s decision to disqualify pro-independence lawmakers Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang, applying Beijing’s controversial interpretation of the Basic Law to require oaths to be taken sincerely and accurately.

Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung denied any political persecution behind the new wave of civil suits and judicial reviews against the four, saying his department had consulted with senior counsel from outside and the government respected the fact that the lawmakers were democratically elected.

“That is an important factor,” Yuen said. “However, it is equally important that all Legco members … should act in accordance with the law. The legal action has absolutely nothing to do with overthrowing or overturning the intention and wishes of the voters.”

The government also issued a statement stressing it had the duty to implement the city’s mini-constitution and check if lawmakers complied with its oath-taking requirements.

The Justice Department’s representatives submitted their application to the High Court in Admiralty just 10 minutes before it closed for the day.

In the writs, the government accused the four lawmakers of turning their swearing-in ceremony on October 12 into a “political tool” to display their own agenda, thereby “declining” to take the oath. It took reference from the first oath-taking court case, involving Yau and Baggio Leung, to argue the court would be bound by the Beijing interpretation which required immediate disqualification in case of non-compliance with oath-taking requirements.

Leung Kwok-hung said the government was mounting “a coup d’état as it seeks to change the people’s political choice”. He said he would have to resort to crowdfunding to pay his legal bill.

Law accused the chief executive of waging “total war against all democrats and all voters supporting democracy”. Lau and Yiu were worried the lawsuit would have a chilling effect on other opposition lawmakers, adding that the chief executive was trying to please Beijing and seek a second term.

Leung Kwok-hung, Law and Lau, along with disqualified pair Yau and Baggio Leung, won a combined 183,236 votes in September’s elections in the geographical constituency. Yiu, who represents the architectural and surveying functional constituency, bagged 2,491 votes.

If all three lost their seats, their camp would no longer keep its 17-16 majority in the constituency, which is necessary for them to vote down motions they oppose.

At the swearing-in session, Leung Kwok-hung took his oath holding a yellow umbrella – an Occupy symbol – and chanted slogans such as “We need no approval from the Chinese Communist Party!” He also tore up a copy of the controversial political reform framework decreed by Beijing on August 31, 2014.

Law raised his intonation when saying the word “Republic” in “People’s Republic of China”, as if asking a question.

Yiu inserted this sentence in his oath: “I will uphold procedural justice in Hong Kong, fight for genuine universal suffrage and serve the city’s sustainable development”.

Lau paused for six seconds between every word of her oath. She later wrote on Facebook that she had meant to render the statement “meaningless”.

(Wen Wei Po) December 2, 2016.

Lau Siu-lai https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4peDyPJixk

On October 12, 2016, Lau Siu-lai preceded her oath with these words: "I, Lau Siu-lai, promise that when I go from the streets into the Legislative Council, I will continue with the spirit of self-determination in the Umbrella Movement to walk with the people of Hong Kong. I will unite with those inside and outside the Legislative Council to oppose the authoritarian regime. We will live in honesty and openness; we will break through coldness and indifference and create the road to democratic self-determination. We will topple the tall wall, determine our own fates and make ourselves strong."

Then she proceeded to read out the oath of office at the slow speed of six seconds per word. Her oath lasted 10 minutes. Afterwards, she said: "Fight for universal pension; implement the policies for marketplaces; defend the dignity in the lives of the people of Hong Kong." She took up a total of 13 minutes for the entire process. At the time, the Legislative Council secretary-general Chan Wai-On who administered the oath did not react.

Afterwards, Lau Siu-lai posted on Facebook under the title: <Slow reading was used to show the absurdity of the oath>: "I read the official oath word by word. The oath became more than 90 unconnected words without any coherence, relationship or meaning. The audience cannot grasp any sentence or tone. In this way, the audience can determine their own meaning based upon their subjective speculations. This is done in order to show the hypocrisy of business-as-usual ... the fluent articulated oath is hypocritical, the harmonious legislature is also hypocritical." She added: ""What I said before the oath is the more honest version."

After receiving complaints and reviewing the video recording, Legco president Andrew Leung declared the oath to be invalid and administered the oath again on November 2. On that occasion, Lau Siu-lai read the oath at a normal pace.

Yiu Chung-yim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea8UsHmnVho

On October 12, Yiu Chung-yim read the oath until he completed the part of pledging allegiance to the People's Republic of China. At that point, he inserted "I will supoport the Hong Kong system, fight for genuine universal suffrage and serve towards sustainable development in Hong Kong." Afterwards the Legco secretary-general Chan Wai-on said that Yiu had altered the oath and demanded Yiu to retake his oath.

Yiu then proceeded to read the oath. Upon completing the oath, he added: "I will supoport the Hong Kong system, fight for genuine universal suffrage and serve towards sustainable development in Hong Kong." At the time, Legco secretary-general Chan Wai-on said that Yiu had altered the oath and told him to return to his seat. Later Legco president Andrew Leung rules that Yiu's oath was invalid. At Yiu's request, the oath was administered again on October 19.

Leung Kwok-hung https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLn6JIUEfbs

At the oath ceremony, Leung Kwok-hung wore a shirt for "civil disobedience." He held an umbrella with slogans such as "End one-party tyranny" and a prop that represents the August 31st decision of the National People's Congress. As he proceeded, he shouted slogans such as "Umbrella Movement, no yielding, no concessions," "I want double universal suffrage" and "Down with CY Leung" etc.

His oath was broken up with 29 pauses that averaged 2 seconds each, including a pause between "the Chinese People's" and "Republic" as well as racing through another "People's Republic of China." After the oath, he shouted: "Rescind the National People's Congress August 31st resolution, I want double universal suffrage, the people will determine their own futures without needing the permission of the Chinese Communists." He tore up his paper prop that represents the August 31st decision of the National People's Congress and littered the pieces onto the ground.

At the time, the Legco secretary-general Chan Wai-on did not react. Later Legco president Andrew Leung did not address the matter.

Nathan Law Kwun-chung https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4OnNgspWjs

Before reading out the oath on October 12, Nathan Law aid that the English term for the oath was "affirmation" whose Latin meaning was being more firm and resolute. He said that the oath is a solemn rite, but the rite has "degenerated into a tool for the authorities" "that compels the popularly elected representatives to bend under the system and its authoritarianism." He said that he had to complete this required procedure, "but it does not mean that I submit myself to authoritarianism." He said that he "will not pledge allegiance to a regime that murders its own people" and that "change begins with resistance."

During his reading of the oath, he read "pledge allegiance to the People's Republic of China(?)" in the tone of a question as opposed to a statement. After reading the oath, he shouted: "Power to the people, tyranny will persih!" At the time, the Legislative Council Chan Wai-On did not react. Afterwards, Legco president Andrew Leung ruled that Nathan Law's oath was valid.

(SCMP) December 8, 2016.

The four pan-democratic lawmakers facing legal action to force them out of the Legislative Council can avoid disqualification if they can prove they took their oaths solemnly, legal experts say.

It will partially come down to whether the four can convince the court that their antics during their swearing-in should not be considered insincere ­– and thus not ­deliberate acts of declining or ­neglecting to take their oaths, they say.

The four would have more room to manoeuvre on that, ­University of Hong Kong principal law lecturer Eric Cheung Tat-ming said, pointing to the fact that Youngspiration lawmakers Baggio Sixtus Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching did not dispute the issue. “The lower court was not ­required to draw a line on that issue,” he said.

“Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law Kwun-chung, Lau Siu-lai and Edward Yiu Chung-yim are the targets of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung’s second round of efforts to disqualify

The Court of First Instance has already given permission to hear the case and will hold a preliminary hearing next Thursday.

After revealing their bid to disqualify the four lawmakers, the justice secretary was quick to give an assurance that the move was entirely legal. The four, plus Baggio Leung and Yau, won a total of 185,727 votes in the September elections. But pundits, including Cheung, slammed it for being politically driven, accusing the government of undermining the city’s democracy.

Senior counsel and former lawmaker Ronny Tong Ka-wah said: “The four each has his or her unique case, so it is up to the court to decide whether they have declined or neglected [their oath].” He said the court would take into account their words and actions and circumstantial evidence.

The oath-taking saga started with Baggio Leung and Yau’s use of controversial words and acts during the oath-taking ceremony in the Legislative Council on ­October 12. The pair unfurled banners saying “Hong Kong is not China” and used a term deemed derogatory to Beijing.

Their act prompted the government to launch high-profile legal action to unseat them, followed by an interpretation by Beijing of Article 104 of the Basic Law, which covers oath-taking.

Government lawyers said the pair’s act showed they had ­declined the oath. Baggio Leung and Yau did not contest that, but instead focused their case on whether the court had jurisdiction to meddle in Legco’s affairs. The pair lost their cases in both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal.

In a ruling that will have a binding effect on the cases involving the four lawmakers, the appeal court reaffirmed the lower court’s finding that the Basic Law was “supreme” and therefore the courts could intervene when Legco had breached the mini-constitution.

It also found that lawmakers would not enjoy their usual immunity when it came to oath-taking, and that the city’s courts would be bound by Beijing’s interpretation.

Cheung said the legal points raised by the localist pair’s lawyers were already mostly restricted by the framework set out by the appeal court judgment and the interpretation, which spelled out in particular that once an oath had been declared invalid, it should be deemed as having been declined or neglected.

But whether they would succeed in contending that this was not the case would depend on the stance they would adopt during the court hearings, Cheung said.

Both Cheung and Tong agreed that Lau Siu-lai, among the four, would have the hardest case to fight in large part due to a social media blog post she made.

Lau’s first oath, which was declared invalid as she paused for six seconds between each word, was followed by a subsequent message posted on a Facebook page affiliated to her saying the words were deliberately broken up to be rendered meaningless.

Tong added in Law’s case, the student activist-turned lawmaker turned part of the oath, which was meant to be a statement, into a question when he deliberately raised the tone of his voice in pronouncing the word China.

“If the court finds it a deliberate attempt ... it amounts to a change in the substance of the oath,” he said, citing reasoning from a 2004 case when Leung Kwok-hung took on Legco so he could be sworn in with an oath he amended.

But Tong said the case against Leung Kwok-hung was weaker and the one targeting Yiu less straightforward.

Internet comments:

- SCMP reported: "Their supporters marched from Legco to the Chief Executive’s Office last night to protest." How many were there? Hundreds of thousands? Here is the answer:

(Wen Wei Po) The opposition camp gathered outside the Legislative Council building tonight to protest the government's judicial review against Lau Siu-lai, Leung Kwok-hung, Nathan Law and Yiu Chung-yim. Only 100 citizens showed up. Lau Siu-lai told them that she is not the only victim, that the four legislators are not the only victims, but that the people of Hong Kong are the victims.

Yes, all 100 of them, including their own Legco aides.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) The government’s purge of the legislature is appalling – Hong Kong’s courts must stand firm. By Kent Ewing. December 5, 2016.

Here goes, although this may not seem the ideal time to express renewed hope and faith in the resiliency of Hong Kong and the “one country, two systems” mantra that is supposed to protect our special status in China until 2047.

After all, two duly elected legislators just got tossed out of the Legislative Council for insulting the mainland, and the positions of four others are now threatened by fresh legal action taken last week by Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung.

Recall that the chief executive and his justice minister were also the source of an earlier judicial review that resulted in the ouster of the Youngspiration duo, Sixtus Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching, after they deliberately botched their oaths during last month’s LegCo swearing-in ceremony. Now the Leung administration—thanks to another noxious “interpretation” of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress that has turned oath-taking into a test of patriotism encompassing the oath-taker’s pace, tone and any accompanying props—is licking its chops in hopes of catching out other troublesome pan-democratic lawmakers for their stunts of protest, even though their oaths (unlike those of the Youngspiration pair) were accepted by LegCo president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen.

The latest targets, with perhaps more to come, are newly elected lawmakers Lau Siu-lai, Dr Edward Yiu Chung-yim and Nathan Law Kwun-Chung as well as that longstanding government nemesis and protester extraordinaire, “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung.

With six pan-dem seats vacated by court order, pro-government lawmakers would rule the roost and the Leung administration—and, by extension, the powers-that-be in Beijing—could have their way in Hong Kong’s legislature. Moreover, if Leung is successful in this legislative coup, it’s hard to imagine how he wouldn’t be Beijing’s favoured candidate in next March’s small-circle CE election by committee. Thus, in addition to witnessing the purge of its legislature, the city could also quite possibly see the singularly divisive, widely reviled purger reinstated for five more years.

Yes, this is a nightmare scenario for everyone who cares about free speech, democracy and judicial independence in Hong Kong. Indeed, it would mark the end of any meaningful system of checks and balances in Hong Kong politics.

Awful. Horrible. Appalling.

Which makes it all the more important to keep the faith and to neither give up nor give in to apathy or despair. This is not the time to write off Hong Kong.

History has shown again and again that, in a crisis, the people of this city rise to the challenge. First there was the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration that sealed their fate under the future sovereignty of a communist dictatorship; five years later came the gut-wrenching shock of the June 4, Tiananmen Square massacre, which made that historic deal look like the kiss of death.

But then the handover came and the handover went— Hong Kong adapted and persevered.

Remember the Asian financial crisis, bird flu, Sars and bird flu again? Hong Kong not only survived—it prevailed.

Before Leung became CE, we suffered through the lacklustre examples of Tung Chee-hwa and Donald Tsang Yam-kuen as post-handover leaders—but the city’s vibrant pulse kept beating.

If there is one thing Hong Kong has proven since the handover 19 years ago, it’s that the people of this city are far stronger and better than their purported leaders. And therein you can place your hope and faith in the future. Given all that Hong Kong has overcome in the past, surely it can survive the lupine leadership of CY Leung and the shambolic Youngspiration debacle.

As events push forward, however, we must hope the city’s courts—which were standing on solid legal ground in denying LegCo seats to the Youngspiration pair after they transformed their oaths into a histrionic pro-independence performance—will not go that dangerous step beyond and invalidate any oath imbued with an improvisational protest.

While the NPC Standing Committee’s interpretation may allow for such a punitive approach, let’s count on independent Hong Kong judges not to take the bait.

If they do, of course, it’s time to hit the streets again—and in bigger-than-ever numbers.

Occupy Everywhere.

- (SCMP) December 7, 2016.

The oath-taking fiasco leading to the disqualification of two pro-independence lawmakers has intensified. Just when the legislature is struggling to restore order and stability following the saga, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying and Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen Kwok-keung have again asked the court to remove another four opposition members on the grounds that they had failed to take their oaths of office according to the law.

The government may think that it is only fair to oust those who have not sworn themselves in properly, especially after the state’s top legislative body stepped in with an interpretation of the relevant provision in the Basic Law. But the move to unseat more pro-democracy lawmakers has raised the stakes even higher, so much so that it may backfire and fuel more uncertainty. Speculation has been growing ever since as many as 15 lawmakers were deemed by Beijing as having failed to swear in properly under the law. Instead of invalidating them in one fell swoop, the judicial review only targeted Edward Yiu Chung-yim of the architectural sector and three directly elected members, Lau Siu-lai, Leung Kwok-hung and Nathan Law Kwun-chung.

The government must have thoroughly considered the legal merits and the possible consequences before taking such a controversial step. According to the writ, the four should be disqualified as they had made political statements or showed insincerity when taking their oaths. The justice secretary stresses that the move is not politically motivated, but critics see it as the chief executive’s plot to drum up support for a possible re-election bid. They also warned that the opposition bloc could lose its critical presence in Legco that keeps the government in check.

Leung’s step is in line with the hawkish approach adopted by Beijing on the oath-taking saga. But it risks upsetting the 130,000 voters who returned the four members. Confusion arose on Monday after the finance chief declared that the government would not answer questions from the four for the time being. The statement even surprised the pro-Beijing camp, which feared that it would fuel more tension in Legco. The government made a U-turn hours later, saying their questions would be answered.

Whether the four should be thrown out is now a matter for the court to decide. We trust our judges will rule according to the law. The Court of Appeal has expounded the legal principles when upholding the lower court’s ruling to remove the two lawmakers. It is to be hoped that the new lawsuit can clarify what sort of behaviour is unacceptable during swearings-in for public office.

- (SCMP) Hong Kong courts are the proper place to hear government’s case against lawmakers, whatever the pan-democrats think. By John Chan. December 8, 2016.

The Chinese term pang men zuo dao (旁門左道) is often used to describe the dirty tricks or unorthodox means employed to meet a goal. Speaking on the government’s move to file judicial reviews against four lawmakers, asking the court to declare their oaths invalid and their Legislative Council seats vacant, veteran lawmaker and senior solicitor James To Kun-sun described it as Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying’s pang men zuo dao.

This stupid comment is typical of the many pan-democratic legislators and supporters who are all but blinded by their hatred of Leung and their instinctive opposition to the government.

To’s comment has smeared a proper and legal manoeuvre and, in doing so, insulted the judiciary and the rule of law. Judicial reviews are a legitimate tool available to everyone to redress the wrongdoings of those in power. It is up to our independent judiciary to decide who’s right and who’s wrong. No one has the right to criticise a citizen, including the chief executive, for exercising such a right.

Many pan-democrats appear to believe that judicial reviews are a legal tool for the exclusive use of the pan-democrats in such causes as delaying the progress of the bridge linking Hong Kong with Zhuhai and Macau.

Last month, Hong Kong’s last British governor, Chris Patten, said bluntly to a roomful of current and former pan-democratic lawmakers and supporters, as well as pro-independence supporters, that advocating independence for Hong Kong undermines the moral high ground gained in the democracy movement. He said it gives Beijing an excuse to label a push for democracy “separatist”. He said self-determination is little different from independence and attempting to differentiate the two is just playing with words.

It was no surprise that Patten launched an all-out attack on pro-independence undertakings. What did embarrass the pan-democrats was that, as a champion of democracy and rule of law, Patten made no comment on the recent move by Beijing to interpret the Basic Law, or the Hong Kong government’s application for judicial review proceedings against the two localist lawmakers-elect.

Instead, Patten criticised the behaviour of Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, saying that oath-taking should not be taken lightly. Patten knows well that Beijing’s interpretation of the Basic Law and the judicial reviews against lawmakers who did not take oaths sincerely have a solid constitutional and legal basis.

To’s dislike of the chief executive does not alter the fact that such moves are proper.

- As usual, the whole thing is being presented as part of the re-election campaign of CY Leung. If so, his campaign co-opted Lau Siu-lai, Yiu Chung-yim, Leung Kwok-hung and Nathan Law to play their parts according to the written script. If CY Leung can pull that off, he could have done many more nefarious things. But that doesn't seem to have happened. So what gives?

The real point here is that these four people brought it all upon themselves. They think that the Legislative Council is a place for performance art, they went too far and now they may have to pay the price. That is the whole story. CY Leung's re-election campaign has nothing to do with this.

- If they want to blame someone, it is going to be Rita Fan and Jasper Tsang who were the two previous Legco presidents. Fan and Tsang allowed shenanigans during the oath of office to go unpunished. At first, the transgressions were truly petty such as coughing at critical points of oaths. As time went by, the legislators felt that they have to outdo others in order to get on television news. Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching said that they had reviewed past videos before embarking on their groundbreaking actions. But they misjudged the consequences, and caused a global backlash by insulting all persons of Chinese descent.

- Everything is about timing and sequencing. If the only case was one of these four legislators, nothing much would come out of it. The legislator would be made to re-take the oath. That's all. Unfortunately the situation here began with Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching who caused a global backlash from all persons of Chinese descent that led to a National People's Congress Standing Committee interpretation of Basic Law Article 104. The matter can no longer be swept under the rug. Once Leung and Yau were ousted in court, the actions of the others come under microscopic scrutiny. Under Common Law, precedents mean everything. Once the precedent was set, everything else follows automatically. Case closed.

(EJ Insight) November 30, 2016.

Localist Edward Leung said he would be going to Harvard University in January as a research assistant and continue his studies for a postgraduate program if possible.

Leung, a member of Hong Kong Indigenous party, said he hopes he can explore more opportunities in the United States before his judicial review in January 2018 on his disqualification to run for the legislature in September, standnews.com reports.

In a webcast Tuesday, Leung said he has not made a public appearance since the oath-taking fiasco involving Youngspiration’s Sixtus Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching. He denied being behind Sixtus Leung and Yau as a “puppet master” during their swearing-in saga but said they should have the freedom to make their own decisions.

On Monday, Edward Leung clashed with former governor Chris Patten during a University of Hong Kong forum in which the latter said independence is not the answer to Hong Kong’s problems. Leung said there’s a need for persuasive tactics in pushing a political concept, especially when most Hong Kong people are liberal rather than radical.

As to the disqualified duo, Leung said he is “very sympathetic” toward their status, regardless of what others say. He said that now there is no clear timeline for a revolution or a framework for making Hong Kong a country. Hong Kong Indigenous as a group has no clear direction either, he said.

Leung said his Harvard research topic will be a comparison between Hong Kong and Taiwan’s nativist movements and independence activities as a tool to revolt against the government.

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 29, 2016.

Chris Patten, the last colonial governor of Hong Kong, said on Monday that independence advocates are “deluding” themselves and “fractioning” support for the city’s democracy movement.

“Hong Kong is a great city; it’s not a nation-state. As a great city, you probably have a more intimate and explicit sense of citizenship than pretty well anywhere else in Asia,” Patten said. “But as soon as the argument moves from suffrage to independence, you start to lose support. You start to lose support internationally, and you start to lose support at home.”

Patten made the remarks at a forum with around 500 student audience members at the University of Hong Kong about the territory’s future.

HKU alum and localist politician Edward Leung of Hong Kong Indigenous asked Patten at the forum: “If we are going to give up our sincere political views just to pacify the dictatorship, are we trying to form another kind of ‘controlocracy’ in Hong Kong?”

The term “controlocracy” is used by Oxford scholar Stein Ringen in his new book The Perfect Dictatorship: China in the 21st Century to describe the sophisticated dictatorship of China based on control.

Calling Leung “dead wrong,” Patten said: “I’m not sure what exactly your plan is for overthrowing the Communist Party in China, but let me tell you what my view is of China: I’m a huge admirer of China, of Chinese culture, of Chinese history, of Chinese art… I’m not a great fan of Leninism and the Chinese Communist Party.”

He said the China Liaison Office – Beijing’s organ in Hong Kong – often confuses Chinese civilisation and leadership in its statements.

“If you think that here in Hong Kong, in the next [two to five years], you can overthrow the Chinese Communist Party, and that Hong Kong can become independent, I just think you’re deluding yourself,” Patten said. “You may be deluding yourself for good reasons, it may be very easy to make good and very eloquent, fiery speeches – and which understandably get applause – but I don’t think you’re giving your colleagues very smart advice.”

The ex-governor said he wanted to hear localists say things which would “ensure that people around the world continue to admire” Hong Kong’s democracy movement as they did during the 2014 pro-democracy Occupy protests. It is important to know when to “cash in your moral chips,” he said.

Patten criticised the independence-leaning camp for “fractioning and minimising” support for Hong Kong while “risking what you want to achieve ending calamitously.”

“I’d be sad – genuinely sad – if the argument about democracy was diverted into another stream where I think it would simply run away into the sand,” he said.

Patten added: “I’m not saying this because I’m a wimp. I’m not saying this because my support for democracy in Hong Kong has weakened. I’m saying this because I don’t want to see the case of democracy weakened by introducing another element into the whole debate which I just don’t think is going to take off. So I respect the strength of your convictions, but I just happen to think you are wrong.”

(Kinliu) December 6, 2016.

In August this year, Edward Leung's nomination in the New Territories East Legco election was nullified by the Returning Election Officer who was not convinced that he would uphold the Basic Law. Edward Leung immediately announced Plan B whereupon his group Hong Kong Indigenous would ally with Youngspration to field Leung Chung-hang in New Territories East district and Yau Wai-ching in Kowloon West election.

Youngspiration does not have any local precinct captains to get the vote out. If they had gone their own way, they may find it hard to get into the Legislative Council because their sole credential is being novices. Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching stated publicly that, if elected, they will share the Legco resources with Hong Kong Indigenous, including the salaries and operational allowances. They also promised to hire Hong Kong Indigenous members as their Legco aides. As the Shadow Warrior (Kagemusha) for Edward Leung, Leung Chung-hang thanked "Brother Kei" for his assistance during the campaign.

But after Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching got elected to the Legislative Council, all the promises got tossed away. Before they moved into the Legco offices, they had announced that they would knock down the office walls to have one big room with no designated seating in order to work as one group. But once reality sunk in, they decided that they could do everything as Yougnspiration without any help from outsiders.

Edward Leung declared that he would have no part in the actual legislative work because he needed to spend more time to prepare for graduate studies. He said that he would only act as an advisor. This arrangement was different from what Youngspiration and Hong Kong Indigenous had agreed upon before the election. But since the world was now focused on Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, nobody paid too much attention to this subtle shift.

In early October, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching began to think about what to do at the Legco oath of office ceremony.  They wanted to use the opportunity to promote Hong Kong independence in the Legislative Council. Based upon the prior examples of Leung Kwok-hung and others, they believe that even if their oaths were not immediately affirmed, there will be always be a second opportunity. Since the cost is zero, they can go as far as they can to justify their election to their supporters. Since they are already elected, they don't have to worry about the Returning Election Officers nullifying their nominations anymore.

Previously Ray Wong of Hong Kong Indigenous said on Internet radio that they recommended to Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching to use the oath of office to promote Hong Kong independence. But they did not expect that Yau Wai-ching would accept the recommendation of her aides to say the "People's Re-fucking of Shina" in the oath. In the end, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching went too far. Ray Wong implied that Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching acted on their own and failed to follow the recommendation from Hong Kong Indigenous exactly. Thus, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching have only themselves to blame.

But the outside world has no way of knowing whether someone else made that recommendation and, once it blew up, shifted the blame upon certain unidentified legislative council aides.

As the advisor of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, Edward Leung curiously maintained total silence as the storm swirled. As the traditional pan-democrats and even the localist self-determination groups turned against the two, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching failed to recognize the trouble that they are in. On October 22, they decided to issue a call for action to demonstrate about "defending the separation of the three powers, and restoring dignity to the legislative branch" outside the Legislative Council. They wanted to show the world that they still have huge support out there. But only 20 to 30 people showed up, fewer than the number of reporters present. The demonstrators were from other post-Umbrella groups and also some regular demonstrators. Hong Kong Indigenous did not mobilize their supporters to go.

Faced with this situation, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching finally woke up. They asked the spectator Edward Leung for mobilize Hong Kong Indigenous and other pro-independence groups to help, but their calls went unheeded.

Actually, while this was going on, Edward Leung was traveling overseas to study for the General Certificate of Secondary Education (United Kingdom) in order to prepare himself for a masters degree and/or research. No wonder Edward Leung was absent during the three incidents (1) the demonstration at the Legislative Council after the first oath ceremony; (2) the intrusion into the Legislative Council to take the second "oath" on their own; (3) the assault on the China Liaison Office to oppose the National People's Congress Standing Committee interpretation of Basic Law Article 104. Only Ray Wong showed upon at the third incident and perched on an electrical box to issue orders at zero cost.

The "submergence" of Edward Leung was duly noted by supporters and fellow travelers. Many Internet users asked Edward Leung to re-emerge and lead everybody to carry out the "Epochal Revolution." Hong Kong Resurgence Order's Wan Chin even threw a watermelon into the ocean (because the Chinese believe that if a person is missing at sea, they can induce the body to re-surface by tossing a watermelon into the sea).

Actually, the watermelon trick worked because the Hong Kong University SPACE Student Union suddenly announced that Edward Leung will make an appearance at a discussion forum on December 5 about youth participation in politics.

When Edward Leung came back to Hong Kong, he had gained one size or possibly even more in body weight. Apart from attending the talk given by former governor Chris Patten, he also appeared on his own Channel i Internet program to discuss the Youngspiration oath incident with Ray Wong. Edward Leung said that the consequences of the oath incident were unexpected. He said that he was "sorry" that he did not stay in Hong Kong to help Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. He said that he did not manipulate the two legislators in the capacity of the boss behind the scenes. He said that that Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching are autonomous beings who stand for themselves in front of the curtain.

During the programme, Edward Leung said that Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching have a huge legal bill to pay and may end up bankrupt. They have sacrificed themselves in the pro-independence movement, in a way that is "quite sad" and "irreversible." An audience member called in to accuse Edward Leung of being irresponsible for killing off Localism while using the need to study as an excuse. Edward Leung laughed and said that when the Localists kicked tourists' suitcases and make children cry, "Did they ever have any good image to speak of"?

Edward Leung said that he is preparing to take the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE), which was established in 1986 to replace the GCE O Level. This is the joint exam for secondary school students in the United Kingdom. Previously, Edward Leung studied philosophy at the Hong Kong University but apparently he did not get his baccalaureate. So how is the GCSE going to get him into a masters program at an overseas university? So far Edward Leung has only stated that he plans to become a "researcher" at Harvard University come January next year and possibly enroll in a masters program related to politics.

- Any Joe can become a 'researcher' at Harvard University. All you need is some professor/lecturer/post-doc who is willing to talk to you, then you apply for a library access pass and all of a sudden you are a 'researcher'!

(NOW TV) December 3, 2016. Also https://www.facebook.com/1556368111346483/videos/1709245042725455/

Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Edward Leung spoke to us about the Legco oath incident and the Basic Law Article 104 interpretation. Leung apologized several times to his supporters about Youngpsiration losing their two Legco seats so quickly. Leung said that he has no plans to enter any by-election or to offer his support to any candidates.

After the September 2016 Legco election, Leung acted an advisor to Youngspiration, but he was unaware about what Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching planned to do during their oaths of office.

(Hong Kong Free Press) June 13, 2017.

Leung, a spokesperson for political group Hong Kong Indigenous, told students during a speech at Britain’s Cambridge University that Beijing was happy to see disunity within the city’s opposition camp.

“In front of the Chinese Communist Party, we are all the same,” he said on Monday. “We are all fated to be oppressed.”

Although localists were considered to have entered Hong Kong’s political scene as a third force opposing both the pan-democrats and the pro-establishment camp, Leung now said that dialogue and understanding with the pan-democrats is needed.

“We have to acknowledge the reality that it will be very hard for [Yau and Baggio Leung] to be re-elected,” he said. “So the most important thing at this moment is to secure the seat back for the opposition camp.”

Leung alluded to the worsening political climate in Hong Kong and government prosecutions against activists as a reason why cooperation is essential.

“Look at what Hong Kong has become, everyone’s been sent to prison. Do we still have the capacity to fight among ourselves?” he asked. “Is it still about who truly holds the flag of democracy? This isn’t the question anymore.”

Leung is facing a riot charge himself for his part in the unrest which rocked Mong Kok last February. His trial is scheduled to begin next year. Four protesters have already been jailed for rioting.

“When teenagers, 20-year-olds, 30-year-olds are going to jail for Hong Kong, what can we still do to make sure the efforts of these people are not wasted?” he asked.

Leung said he did not regret supporting Yau and Baggio Leung during last September’s legislative elections, but suggested that the Youngspiration duo’s oath-taking stunt was unwise.

“To promote your ideology, your duty is to attract, convince those who disagree with you – not those who already agree with you,” he said.

He added that many people whom he has met since moving to the United States earlier this year regard Hong Kong’s localists as populists and even racists. “If we want to preserve our identity, it must not be xenophobic.”

- Hong Kong Indigenous Facebook, December 18, 2017.


[Hong Kong Indigenous' statement on the resignation of spokesperson Edward Leung Tin-kei]
Facing a long trial ahead, Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Edward Leung Tin-kei indicated that he wanted to spend the remaining months with his family and therefore resigned his party membership and spokesperson position. Our party asked him to reconsider to no avail.

Although Hong Kong Indigenous thought that this was regrettable, we respect his decision. Edward has advocated Hong Kong as the core and established the identity of Hongkonger. He has also implemented his ideals and sought after self-determination. While he was spokesperson, he represented our party to run in the 2016 New Territories East Legislative Council by-election and obtained the astonishing result of 66,524 votes. In so doing, he succeeded to inject Localism into the mainstream Hong Kong political stage.

Hong Kong Indigenous sincerely thanks Edward for his contributions. We wish everything to work out smoothly for him. Someday we may meet again and fight together for the future of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong Indigenous
December 18, 2017.

- Who are the Hong Kong Indigenous? There are three members whose names are known to the general public.

The first is Edward Leung Tin-kei. Apparently he is resigning from Hong Kong Indigenous in order to present a defense that he was an innocent passerby on the night of the Mong Kok riot which was instigated by a violent gang known as Hong Kong Indigenous with whom he has no association.

The other two Hong Kong Indigenous persons were in the news recently. (SCMP) December 9, 2017. At the High Court, Madam Justice Anthea Pong Po-kam issued an arrest warrant for Ray Wong Toi-yeung after he failed to report to the Tai Po police station and surrender his passport after a judge-approved trip to Europe. The judge also issued an arrest warrant for Li Tung-sing who failed to appear in court. Wong and Li were scheduled to stand trial with Edward Leung on charges related to what happened during the Mong Kok riot.

And these are supposed to be the fearless valiant warriors of the Hong Kong Nation. They are the ones who advocate valiant resistance with no boundaries.

Internet comments:

- Which one of these sayings of Edward Leung do you find to be the funniest?

(1) I have already given up caring about matters of life and death.

(2) I am merely a fresh university grad.

(3) I am cowardly and I don't want to be remanded in custody immediately

(4) Resistance means having no red line.

(5) Revolution is our duty.

(6) If someday I am no longer me, you should take me down.

- Famous last words:

Edward Leung, you have already apologized on your program. I and my friends will continue to support you.
Baggio Leung Chung-hang, you are already thirty years old. You need to accept responsibility for the extras that you added in your oath.

- This screen capture was given the hashtag #StupidCunt.

- Hey, is this the same guy who posted 信天琦，撐青政("Trust Edward Leung and support Youngspiration") a few months ago?

- Wan Chin's Facebook

In Chinese and western societies, a guarantor must be reputable and responsible ... the guarantor must monitor and guarantee that his subject does not get into trouble. Once things go wrong, he must act immediately to put a stop to it. The guarantor may be putting his own life and wealth at risk. This sort of moral responsibility also exists in European societies.

Edward Leung guaranteed two Youngspiration candidates to run. After they got into trouble, Leung hid in the background. Even after the National People's Congress Standing Committee interpreted the Basic Law and destroyed constitutional rule in Hong Kong, he pretended that nothing has happened. After the appeal of Youngspiration was rejected, he finally trotted out to say that he is a fresh grad, that he intends to study at Harvard and that he has nothing to do with any of this. This type of immoral person is the shame of Hong Kong. We must reflect on why Hong Kong is hell on earth for producing such young people and also having so many people sympathizing with such young people.

- I just finished watching Edward Leung and Ray Wong on Channel-i, and I have these questions:

When so many things have happened and are happening in Hong Kong,

(1) You need to study in preparation for taking the GRE (Graduate Record Examinations) and therefore you can't even find the time to record a few video clips to state your response?

(2) You have to file applications to masters programs as well as take care of a few thousand other things, which is why you can't find the time. I would like to know where the Hong Kong Revolution that you propose ranks in your priority list of things to do? #1? #7? #463?

(3)  You say that you are merely a university graduate, so we should not be asking you about strategies of nation-building ... so when you fucking criticized other people's strategies of nation-building before, you actually didn't know shit?

(4) You say that the people of Hong Kong only want to watch the show and therefore they don't genuinely support Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching. That's very funny! It is okay for you to be busy with your studies. Meanwhile the people of Hong Kong are known for being very busy -- they can only attend demonstrations on Sunday, assemblies must be held after 8pm because they need to have dinner first and stopped before 11pm because they need to take the subway home, etc and that is why they can't come out to support Leung/Yau ... they are exactly like you!!!

- First, we thought that Plan B (Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching) was a mess. Now we learn that Plan A (Edward Leung Tin-kei) is even more more fucked up!

- More quotes from Edward Leung (Speakout HK): "When I said that there is no redline before, it was a time when I was in a struggle with others. I could not possibly show my hand. Even if I had a red line, I could not let the other side know. I cannot set restrictions upon myself. But now I am showing my hand." There is even more: "Although I am disheartened, I have not given up" and "Someday there will be another explosive point for us to come back. It will happen for sure."

- During the election, we heard about the Epochal Revolution: "Can't say it. Don't ask. Just believe." But today Edward Leung came back to us with a broad smile on his face: "Does anyone have a roadmap to genuine universal suffrage?" "I am merely a fresh university grad. Just twenty fucking something years old. You ask me for nation-building strategies? Sorry, I don't know." "I will study some more. I will begin to do research. Let me see if I can write something up."

- A few days ago, former Hong Kong University Student Union president Billy Fung explained that the Epochal revolution is not a physical revolution but an attitude. In summary, the "Epochal Revolution" is just a slogan like "Build a democratic China." The latter slogan represent a wish. Who is going to make it into a reality? Nobody knows. After chanting that slogan for more than twenty years, people begin to question whether it is realizable. But the the slogan-chanters get upset and call their critics traitors.

Oh, Billy Fung stood on the stage to express his support for Youngspiration. During the Legco elections, he called for the Epochal Revolution. Yau Wai-ching converted from non-support to personal support for Hong Kong independence. Everybody chimes in for Epochal Revolution and Hong Kong independence. Edward Leung said that he will give up his life. Ray Wong called for Valiant Resistance ... but now Billy Fung is telling us that this Revolution is just an attitude, a spirit, a mentality. Fuck your mother!

This is not just a misleading advertisement. This is fishing for fame and fortune by deception. What is the difference between you guys and the Alliance to Support Patriotic Democratic Movements in China?

- At the HKU SPACE forum on December 5th, an audience member asked Edward Leung: "You endorsed Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching for the Legislative Council. Afterwards they created the oath incident which led to the NPCSC interpretation. Do you feel that you have any responsibility?" Edward Leung replied: "I feel that after those two got into the Legislative Council, I should not control them." Hahaha! Edward Leung spoke as if he has nothing whatsoever to do with Leung/Yau. As Internet users say, "Heads I win, tails you lose."

- At the HKU SPACE forum, Edward Leung said: "I have no plans for the future of Hong Kong. I want to concentrate on studying. To a certain extent, I am trying to escape reality ... therefore I am going to study." The other discussant Tim Kwai asked Leung: "How come we have to ask the outsider Chris Patten about Hong Kong independence?" Leung became quiet.

- NOW TV

"I feel that I am very much useless. A lot of times I give empty talk. I don't really have any solid theoretical foundations underneath. Therefore I choose to go study."

Now you tell us that everything about "Epochal Revolution" was empty talk that is not grounded in any theoretical basis.

- Election campaign poster of Edward Leung

No matter how strong our opponents may be
As long as we are not cowardly anymore
We will bravely challenge authoritarianism
And then Hong Kong will ultimately become a place that belongs to Hongkongers

- And when authoritarianism became reality, he said: "To resist the National People's Congress Standing Committee interpreting the Basic Law ... I don't know how to get to the very front. I choose to say nothing ... I am cowardly, I don't want to be sent back to the detention centre now."

Bravely challenge authoritarianism? It is either that or else go to study at Harvard University.

- A dilemma is a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones. So this is not a dilemma. This is a no-brainer.

- Edward Leung speaks, during the election campaign for the February 2016 by-election


The fruits of democracy are fed not with water but by blood and sweat
Therefore I am psychologically prepared
To give up any consideration of life versus death.

- Edward Leung spoke at a Hong Kong National Party rally several months ago. Those were fine words back then, but now he says that he has no idea what he was talking about.

- Poster: When tyranny becomes reality, I will apply to go study at Harvard

- Edward Leung said: "When I advocate now, I am unable to go in the very front. This is different from how I used to do things. So this becomes a case of telling others to do what I won't do. I don't want it to be like this. That is why I choose to say nothing at all."

- (HKG Pao) December 4, 2016. Edward Leung said that he "felt very much useless because most of the time he only talks." Because there is "no firm theoretical basis to back him up," he chooses to go and study. He does not think that "valiant resistance" has reached its end. But right now here is a huge price to pay either to continuing the valiant resistance or "insisting that every act must have a definite result that gets the loudest bang." Leung said his own political career is very brief: "It's over. Less than one year. Like fireworks."

Right now, Leung says that he is a member of the Localist Cats Frontier, because the Hong Kong Indigenous office has set aside a special room to house stray cats. This is the place where he has been most often. "I don't want to go out into the street where I can be recognized. I get nervous because there are too many conspiracy theories to think about. The mental pressure is tremendous."

Ray Wong: "I am currently out of bail for the riot charge. If I should get re-arrested, I will be remanded in custody until the riot trial begins in 2018. Even if I cannot be on the frontline, there are different posts at the scene, such as transmitting information from the front line to get material supplies from the rear. Different people can play different roles at different times. Right now I am unable to be at the frontline, but I still want to do what I can. This newspaper report said that Ray Wong is telling others to charge but won't do so himself. I am reminded that certain pan-democratic leftist retards smear the localists, but I never imagined that those who were smeared would attack other people in the same way."

 In fewer words, we can quote Edward Leung to summarize what Ray Wong is doing: "Ray Wong told others to do what he wouldn't do himself." PERIOD.

- Chau Yau Luan's Facebook

Before the election, [Edward Leung] used the term "Epochal Revolution." He said that voting for Leung Chung-hang was the same as voting for Edward Leung because he has known Youngspiration for a long time, and the Key Opinion Leaders (KOL's) said that the trust can be transferred across accounts. After the election, they thought that they were in heaven. And then "Re-fucking Shina" set fire to the powder keg. As soon as things went awry, Edward Leung dove deep under the water surface. After a long while, he re-surfaced as fat as a floating bloating corpse. He said: "How to carry out the Epochal Revolution? I haven't figure out the answer yet. I must study first. Leung/Yau messed up? I did not anticipate it. It is none of my business."

It is the grand project of the people of Hong Kong to let fucking assholes like these and other KOL's gain power.

- Do Chan's Facebook

I have never regretted having supported Edward Leung. I am glad that I stopped supporting him after 2/28. When Edward Leung went from revolutionary martyr back to an ordinary choice, it was his choice. I do not have the right to make him to continue to do whatever. But before he retires, he needs to do two things: (1) issue a formal apology; (2) announce his retirement and decline all future interviews. Right now, he is just sharing his cowardice with the media. This is irresponsible and lowly. However, Hongkongers seem to buy into it. You jump in, you bail out and all you have to say is "I'm a coward."

Is sharing his cowardice the same as apologizing? Fuck! You don't even fucking know what an apology is. Has he apologized? Has he acknowledged his errors? Whom did he apologize to? No. He did not apologize to anyone. He is only selling his own personal tragedy when he confesses to cowardice.

Compared to the political celebrities in the eye of the storm, I detest the Key Opinion Leaders even more. If they did not lend support to spin spin spin, Leung-Leung-Yau would have moved on leaving a space after they screwed up. But now, the KOL's help them with all sorts of excuses. At this point, even admitting your own defects has become a virtue. You see, the people of Hong Kong are just trash. The fact is, when you screw up, you should stand still and accept your punishment. There is no need to make a big deal out of it.

For example, your company holds a group meeting. That punk on their team made a presentation that contains numerous mistakes. But you praise him for the beautiful font styles in his presentation and his clear articulation of the sentences. Well, you should have toss that team member out and feed him to the dogs. As another example, your mother manages to travel from her place to yours by bus, and you praise her for such a marvelous accomplishment. Are you fucking stupid?

- Sau Wai Chan's Facebook


Honestly speaking, it is cool to be prosecuted for rioting and still be able to go overseas to study.
If you want to scoot off and seek political asylum, please say so honestly. A lot of people can understand it.
What theory are you talking about? Everybody is waiting for your Epochal Revolution. Nobody is waiting for you to become a theoretician.

Back then, you said with conviction that the permanent continuation of the Basic Law would not work? Now it turns about that you are just a fresh grad? And even you feel that you don't know anything? So why did you say that before? There is no option left in Hong Kong except for Revolution, and therefore you want to go to study overseas? You sound bold and forthright when you disown the mess that you leave behind?

Which ones of you scolded Raymond Wong for picking on Edward Leung? All of you should commit seppuku and die.

Is Hong Kong going to rely on people like you to bring in the Epochal Revolution?

- Chun Man's Facebook

For most of the year before the elections, I held great hopes for the generation that is younger than I am, because I saw that they were willing to fight for the future of Hong Kong unlike my generation.
Most of my generation say not to cause trouble, having food and lodging is enough, and politics is none of their business.

During and after the elections, I saw every single candidate saying that they are willing to sacrifice for Hong Kong.
After the election, all I saw were traitors, or those who vanished from view, or those who make fun of the election losers.
But when they got into trouble themselves, they refuse to acknowledge their own mistakes.

I have no more hope for the new generation. Perhaps only a small number of Hongkongers are left with no slavish DNA. At this time in Hong Kong, the Legislative Council is useless.

Since I have no ability, I can only take care of my own self. When I have time, I will play some computer games. It is useless to feel bad. I have lived half of my life already. I don't have any children. The next generation of Hongkongers can go on supporting those people who stand around and chant slogans without doing anything else. I am better off watching from the sideline.

- When unemployment becomes real, it becomes your sacrosanct duty to gain weight.


New looks for Yau Wai-ching (Youngsbloating) and Edward Leung Tin-kei (Hong Kong Fatso Waistline)

- In Chinese culture, your appearance reflects your state of mind.

Top row: Edward Leung after and before selling out
Bottom row: Chinese student leader Wu'er Kaixi before and after going into exile

- Spoof:

Row 1: Wu'er Kaxi, then and now
Row 2: Chai Ling, then and now
Row 3: Lee Cheuk-yan, then and now
Row 4: Joshua Wong now and later (actually, it's actor Bobby (="the ugliest man in Hong Kong") Yip now)

- Cheng Kam-mun (Civic Passion)

Two years ago, I was arrested during the clearance of Argyle Street (Mong Kok). I got bailed out with an order not to go to Mong Kok. That same night I went back to Mong Kok to continue the action. I also went to Admiralty to lay siege to the Government Headquarters. On Christmas Eve, I went down to Mong Kok to stir things up. I spend Christmas Day and New Year's Day in the detention centre.

Thereafter, I continued to carry bail. During the Restore Movement, I was arrested almost every time. But I continued to come back out and fight.

Occupy, Resistance, Election. Each one is a fight to the death with losses. My psychological state is a mess as I am burned out.

I want to leave, but I am still here.

Fuck your mother, full steam ahead!

- Andy Kwong's Facebook

On one hand, Cheng Kam-mun gave up his overseas studies in order to join the resistance in Hong Kong.
On the other hand, Edward Leung went away to study in Canada after speaking about the Epochal Revolution.
And then the people of Hong Kong feel that Edward Leung is a heroic leader
whereas Cheng Kam-mun is a lousy bastard.

- Keyvin Wong's Facebook

Under a tyranny, all resisters are in danger. If anyone should be persecuted to any degree, all others should mourn. But some people like to boast about their own charges in order to elevate themselves above others for the sake of political capital.

Edward Leung's riot trial will be tried in January 2018. If he should be sent back into the detention centre, he will have to serve more than a year of imprisonment. His potential jail term is far more than the usual illegal assembly charge. Although there are plenty of big talkers, very few of them are facing problems of the same magnitude. This is simple to understand, but certain shameless people are covering it up.

- Keyvin Wong has totally missed the point. We are not comparing the relative severity of Edward Leung's rioting charge against Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion)'s 59 counts of unlawful assembly. A charge is not a medal and we are not comparing medal weight or chemical composition. So what if your potential sentence is heavier or lighter?

The point of emphasis is that Edward Leung previously talked about being ready to give his life up and thus got all the glory (and votes). But when he actually has to go into the battlefield on behalf of Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching, he says: "I am afraid of going to prison, I am cowardly" and then he scoots off to study overseas! If he is so gutless, he should have told us so before. Why did he steal our support by pretending to be a fearless revolutionary and valiant resister? Edward Leung brought us Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching. Nobody else owns more responsibility for what those two morons did to the cause of Localism than Edward Leung. Cowardice is no excuse!

- Edward Leung has gone to Harvard. What about you? Chris Wat Wing-yin's column

Seeing how Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching went from the acme of glory deep into the abyss of ignominy, Edward Leung stayed low until the last couple of days. Edward Leung was interviewed by NOW TV. He apologized to his supporters, admitted that he is useless and afraid of going to prison, and then he announced that he will be studying for a masters degree at Harvard University next year.

Mong Kok riot co-leader Ray Wong announced earlier that he has been accepted by Oxford University for a two-year diploma course in philosophy. This is not a degree program, but it is inspiring to see a secondary school graduate who could not even qualify for university can attend Oxford right after throwing bricks in a riot. Meanwhile Occupy Central leader and former Hong Kong Federation of Students secretary-general Alex Chow is also studying for a masters degree at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Among the trouble-makers, only Joshua Wong couldn't get into any famous university. Nevertheless Wong has been traveling around Europe and America, giving interviews and garnering fame.

When the leaders are fleeing, will the Valiant Ones finally wake up? Let me tell you some old history lessons ...

You like to talk about June 4th. Every year you go down to Victoria Park to light candles. But did Lee Cheuk-yan tell you what happened to the student leaders of that era? Whatever happened to them afterwards? After Wang Dan and Wu'er Kai-xi left China, they went to study at Harvard. Wang Dan even got a doctorate degree. Chai Ling escaped to France and even studied for a masters degree at Princeton University and Harvard University. She married a foreigner and became a company president. Everything that happened after they left China had nothing to do with the Chinese democracy movement.

The Victoria Park candlelight vigil will not be showing the American documentary <Tiananmen Square>, because Chai Ling told the truth: "We were hoping for bloodshed ... when blood flows like a river on Tiananmen Square, the people of China will truly open their eyes." As you have said before: you can never wake someone up if they are pretending to be asleep. But the reality is now in front of your eyes: Edward Leung is going to study at Harvard. What about you? You may still be out on bail, but a prison cell has been reserved for you at Stanley Prison. Did Harvard give you an offer? Wake up! If you continue to sacrifice and behave stupidly, you will only make for someone else's perfect story.

- (Ming Pao) December 7, 2016.

Edward Leung said: "The Mong Kok clash on Lunar New Year's Day caused Localists to become famous. The blood had not been shed in vain."

Is he still as "valiant" as before? He said: "I don't know. Hard to say." He said: "I should not be afraid of being sent back to the detention centre. I should have charged ahead. But if I was really that valiant, is that kind of valor ill-considered? Is it stupid? Isn't the more urgent thing to move more hearts and minds to support us? If I charge gloriously ahead and get detained until the Mong Kok riot trial is held in January 2018, will that enable us to win over the majority of the population? I don't think so, and I don't think that this can achieve something such as overturning Basic Law interpretation such as the August 31st resolution."

- Edward Leung's skin is thicker than that of a dinosaur! In February, he said that "resistance has no redline." Today he says that he is a coward whose redline is: "Do not be remanded in custody!" In other words, he will only save his own skin.

Fuck you! Do you think that revolutionaries bask in the glory without ever having to pay a price? As the father of the Epochal Revolution, you find it convenient to go into hiding just when everybody expects you to lead the troops. Chan Pak-yeung (Civic Passion) was remanded in custody pending appeal of a 9-month jail sentence for his part in the Mong Kok riot. If you are so scared, then why did you talk about not worrying about trifling matters such as life and death?

The worst part is when Edward Leung tells us that the blood was not shed in vain in Mong Kok, because the Localists became famous. Hey, how dare you say that? On February 8, you became the Father of the Epochal Revolution. But you did not put the rising fame of the Localists to good use. Instead, you endorsed the two pieces of garbage known as Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching and you derailed the Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order's five-district de facto referendum plan. After Leung/Yau got themselves into trouble, you went into hiding. Today, the cause of Localism is almost completely devastated. And you dare to tell me that the blood was not shed in vain?

- (Wen Wei Po) December 9, 2016.

On the latest episode of the Channel-I program of Hong Kong Indigenous, Edward Leung said: "Two years ago, many of us came out to 'Occupy'. How long did we 'Occupy'? 79 days! We were unable to loosen the August 31st resolution of the National People's Congress Standing Committee by even a fraction of an inch. Today, the NPCSC has issued another executive order (in the form of the Interpretation of Basic Law Article 104) with the full support of the state apparatus ... so we must have an even larger mobilization than last time in order to shake this Interpretation."

Leung said that he had stayed away because he deemed that it would be impossible to mobilize at the same scale as "Occupy Central" two years ago, much less something bigger. Therefore he chose to stay quiet and did not come back to lead an 'insurrection.' "I could have recorded some videos between my studies to call on people to resist, to tell them that they should not blame the victims, to unite and fight the Interpretation. But I am on bail with three charges against me. When I cannot stand at the very front, I don't want to do it."

Leung said: "If someone carrying bail on multiple charges is willing to charge in the very front, I respect him. But the darker side of my inner self is my cowardice. I don't mind telling you, because I am not Superman."

Leung told people not to give up. He said that the history of Taiwan provides a good example for Hong Kong. "After the Formosa incident, Taiwan went through seven years of silence under oppression before the democracy/independence movement continued. We must spread the idea of independence into various sectors of society, so that it becomes the chemical agent for many more possibilities."

Therefore it is premature to declare Hong Kong independence as a failure just because of a temporary setback. "The Mong Kok riot occurred less than a year ago. We cannot say that it was a failure eight or nine months later. If so, we would have declared the Zhongli incident a failure too, because no large-scale demonstration took place within the next eight or nine months. Hong Kong is the same. It would be naive that the Chinese Communists would collapse in one swoop through a single demonstration or a single clash."

- Apparently Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching rejected the advice of Edward Leung and preferred to listen to other people such as Lam Ho Ki. Here is Lam's track record:


July 30, 2016: "I have the feeling that Edward Leung will go through. I will wait to discuss afterwards." [That was just before the Returning Election Officer voided Edward Leung's nomination.]

October 24, 2016: "The Hong Kong Communists are foundering. It is getting more optimistic for Wednesday." [That was just before the government filed a judicial review to stop the second oath of office for Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching.]

November 1: "Actually I think that the Interpretation of the Basic Law is just a smokescreen. It may not come to pass. A couple days after the government filed the judicial review, rumors about an Interpretation appeared. I am skeptical whether this can occur. It is such a high cost thing to do for such low benefits. What is the likelihood of this happening under Xi Jinping, who wants stability above all else? I have said many times before that a political prediction is a thought/debate process based upon evidence. The purpose is to go through the exercise and detect the blind spots in the argument. I am not Wan Chin. I can't pretend that I know the future. But I believe that my judgment can't be hugely wrong. I don't think that I am wrong." [That was just before the National People's Congress Standing Committee issued an Interpretation of Basic Law Article 104.]

November 8, 2016: "About the Interpretation: If Judge Au refuses to accept the Interpretation, it becomes more likely that the Court of Final Appeal will stand firm. If so, this will be the first instance in which an Interpretation failed. A huge defeat will become a big victory." [That was just before the Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the government against Leung/Yau without even needing to refer to the Interpretation.].

- Question: Has Lam Ho-ki ever been right on anything?

- (Wen Wei Po) December 12, 2016. The Chau Yau Luan Facebook wrote: "VJ Media stayed away from the storm for a while, but they are now coming back to whitewash Edward Leung. They said that Leung proved not to be the next Sun Yat-sen, but he doesn't owe anything to anyone. Therefore we must not be too harsh on him. Well, whoever wrote that is fucking stupid. During the election, Leung attacked Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence and promoted Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching. After Leung/Yau put on a clown show, Edward Leung went into hiding. Today, the Localist movement is completely devastated by Leung/Yau. Do the people have no right to hold Edward Leung accountable? ... Actually, the three of them come together in a single package.

Edward Leung->Resistance has no red line, but I have my own red line (namely, not to be remanded in custody awaiting trial)

Leung Chung-hang->I will stay behind and be the last to leave, but I have long legs and I will outsprint everybody to be the first to grab the taxi to leave

Yau Wai-ching->I will shed the first drop of blood, but nobody has ever seen me in any street resistance.

- (Wen Wei Po) December 12, 2016.

- Why did Edward Leung resurface only after Youngspiration is totally cooked? Didn't you say that Youngspiration shares your ideas? Through the entire process, you said nothing whatsoever either on Facebook or your Internet program. Is this the responsible thing to do?

- Why don't you say so before the election? After the election, you went into hiding. Now that the nails have been hammered into the coffin, you come back out to tell us about your own trials and sorrows. What do you really want? If you are so scared, you should have stayed in hiding. Nobody is forcing to come back out!

- The whole problem is that you boasted about the Epochal Revolution and all that beforehand, and then you disappeared afterwards. Do you think that you can get off with just saying "I am useless"? Are you kidding?

- Do you think that you are the only pitiful person around? The people of Hong Kong are even more pitiful. Especially those who voted for your Plan B of Leung/Yau. They trusted Edward Leung to bring them eternal life! Instead you gave him Leung/Yau.

- Frankly I don't care if you are useless (impotent). I am only concerned that you may get away with zero accountability. You're the one who wanted the Epochal Revolution, but it turns out that your first and foremost priority is not to go to jail.

- You come out and say that you are just a fresh grad who has no theory for the independence/revolution. Fine, why don't you just shut the fuck up and go away to study for your GRE? Please do not pop up on the media every day like you are doing right now. It was enough for you to say "I am useless" once and then fade away forever.

- If you say that you want to go and study, then you should do just that. However, you keep talking publicly. So this shows that you still want to pursue a career as a political hack.

- (HKG Pao) January 11, 2017. The trial of Edward Leung for publicly fighting with the Ta Kung Pao reporter begins on January 13, 2017. If convicted, Leung may not get a visa to do research at Harvard University. So recently, Leung has been going round to ask people to write character testimonies in order to plead for leniency.

- (Apple Daily) The Epochal Revolution project is on a roll with Edward Leung making an appearance on a video advertorial to promote Tenga masturbation cups.

- Is Edward Leung the disposable masturbation cup for Youngspiration? Or is Youngspiration the disposable masturbation cup for Edward Leung?

- The Progressive Lawyers Group held its 2nd anniversary party, with guests Edward Leung plus a number of other leftist retards such as Lester Shum, Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow, Billy Fung, Yvonne Leung, Leung  Kwok-hung, Chan Chi-chuen, etc.


Edward Leung: At the anti-Interpretation demonstration, organizations with different positions than the Localists took part and some of their members were arrested. The police are arresting more people even now. Why can't people with political stances get together? Severance, divisions, purges ... you wind up with 10% of the people. It would be enough in a proportionate representation system, but I don't think that it is enough to fight the Communists. That's all.

Internet user Szeto Yukmo: The saddest thing about a person is to see him pick up a rock and drop it on his own foot.
Many people think that they are never wrong. They won't seriously evaluate what they did. The people assume that everything that they do is right. Such people are like Ting Hai, who is always right in whatever he does.
Hey! Afraid to die. OK, FINE! From no redline to redline.
Hey! Worried about the political aura of the organization. OK, FINE! The bargaining chip for resistance becomes the bargaining chip in elections. The political aura can be transferred at will. Valiant resistance becomes a political campaign slogan!
Once upon a time, you want to dismantle the Grand Stand and disband the organization. Today you sit down at the same table with them to have dinner and play games afterwards. There is no problem.
A person's character is like a stack of wooden blocks. You pull one block out a time. Eventually you realize that you are no longer a person.

- Fuck! You should have gone directly to have Demosisto as your Plan B instead of those two Youngspiration assholes!


- Kidd Ho's Facebook
Actually it is easy to be a supporter of Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration: The pan-democratic supporters have to give money; Long Hair has to ask people every day for money; Civic Passion worked the hardest, because they have to give money, effort, bleed and go to jail.

But Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration supporters can just get on the Internet, make themselves happy by posting many purposeless comments, irritate a lot of other people and then they are already successful loyal supporters of Hong Kong independence according to Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration. (Actually, Mister Watermelon Head Edward Leung is publicly saying that he does not know the way, but the supporters say that they will continue to support his way anyway -- not even TV Most could come up with such an absurdist script). But as soon as the subject of money for legal fees come up, they will all say that they are broke at the moment; if you ask them to demonstrate, they will say that they are busy playing computer games; they can stay underneath the sea until they become bloating corpses; and of course you can't expect them to go to jail for the cause.

No wonder everybody wants to support Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration. It costs nothing and it is a lot of fun. Why wouldn't you be their supporter?

- (Oriental Daily) February 28, 2017.

Chinese University of Hong Kong student publication <U-Beat Magazine> interviewed 15 university students who voted for Leung Chung-hang or Yau Wai-ching at the Legislative Council elections last September. More than half of them said that they would vote for someone else if they can do it all over again. Many of those said that they regret voting for Leung-Yau. With respect to the oath of office, most of the interviewees said that Leung and Yau lacked political wisdom. One person said that they dug a hole for themselves to jump into. At the same time, most of them have lost faith in Localism and think that large-scale Localist social movements will no longer be viable. "Unless ten Edward Leung's pop out at the same time to revive Localism, but there isn't any right now."

(SCMP) November 30, 2016.

The two pro-independence lawmakers who were kicked out of Hong Kong’s legislature for failing to take their oaths properly lost their appeal against disqualification on Wednesday and appeared hesitant about taking their case to the city’s top court.

In quashing the appeal by Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, who swore allegiance to a “Hong Kong nation” when taking their oaths last month, the three Court of Appeal judges unanimously confirmed the applicability of Beijing’s “true and proper” interpretation of the Basic Law.

“[The Basic Law] must mean that taking the oath is a prerequisite and precondition to the assumption of office,” the judgment read. “All this is now put beyond doubt by the interpretation.”

The ruling is a political victory for both the Hong Kong and Beijing governments, which have stepped up their rhetoric against advocates of Hong Kong’s independence from China since the pair were elected in September.

The court also conceded it had no jurisdiction over how broad Beijing’s say might be when interpreting the city’s mini-constitution. It also ordered the pair to pay the full legal costs.

Speaking outside court, Leung and Yau reframed their earlier vow to fight all the way to the Court of Final Appeal. They said they were “actively considering” their ultimate appeal and had already written to the appellate court to inform the judges, who were originally expecting to hear their case on Thursday, that they reserved the right to appeal for now.

Leung said he was worried their final appeal might touch upon legal arguments that could prompt the judges to seek a further interpretation from Beijing. He was also worried about having to foot a “seven-digit” security bill for a final court challenge.

(The Stand News)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 224 OF 2016 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 185/2016)

____________

BETWEEN

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG  1st Applicant

SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE 2nd Applicant

and

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Respondent

and

SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG 1st Interested Party

YAU WAI CHING 2nd Interested Party

_______________

AND

CACV 225/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 225 OF 2016 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 185/2016)

____________

BETWEEN

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG  1st Applicant

SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE 2nd Applicant

and

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Respondent

and

SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG 1st Interested Party

YAU WAI CHING 2nd Interested Party

_______________

AND

CACV 226/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 226 OF 2016(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP 2819/2016)

____________

BETWEEN

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR  1st Plaintiff

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE 2nd Plaintiff

and

YAU WAI CHING 1st Defendant

SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG 2nd Defendant

PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL  3rd Defendant

_______________

AND

CACV 227/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 227 OF 2016 (ON APPEAL FROM HCMP 2819/2016)

____________

BETWEEN

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HKSAR  1st Plaintiff

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE 2nd Plaintiff

and

YAU WAI CHING 1st Defendant

SIXTUS LEUNG CHUNG HANG 2nd Defendant

PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL  3rd Defendant

_______________

(Heard Together)

Before: Hon Cheung CJHC, Lam VP and Poon JA in Court

Dates of Hearing: 24 & 25 November 2016

Date of Judgment: 30 November 2016 

_____________

JUDGMENT
_____________

Hon Cheung CJHC:

The facts

1. These appeals are from the judgment of Au J dated 15 November 2016.

2. The controversy leading to these appeals is so great and so widely reported that it is unnecessary, particularly in view of the urgency of the matter, to give any detailed account of the facts.  Suffice it to say, Sixtus Leung Chung Hang (“Leung”) and Yau Wai Ching (”Yau”) were elected in their respective geographical constituencies in the general election for the Legislative Council (“LegCo”) held in September this year.  Their terms of office as members of the LegCo started on 1 October 2016.

3. As stipulated in section 19 of the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (Cap 11) (“the Ordinance”):

“ A member of the Legislative Council shall, as soon as possible after the commencement of his term of office, take the Legislative Council Oath which –

if taken at the first sitting of the session of the Legislative Council immediately after a general election of all members of the Council and before the election of the President of the Council, shall be administered by the Clerk to the Council;

if taken at any other sitting of the Council, shall be administered by the President of the Council or any member acting in his place.”

4. Section 16(d) and Schedule 2, Part IV of the Ordinance require the LegCo Oath to be in the following terms:

“ I swear that, being a member of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, I will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity.”

5. The first meeting of the LegCo was held on 12 October 2016.  On that day, both Leung and Yau were duly requested to take the LegCo Oath before the Clerk to the LegCo, as the election of the President of the Council had yet to take place.  Both Leung and Yau purported to do so, but in ways and manners, detailed in paragraph 5 of the judgment below, which departed substantially from the statutory contents of the LegCo Oath, and evinced objectively an intention on their respective parts not to be bound by it.

6. In particular, it is plain, as the learned judge below analysed in paragraphs 45 and 46 of his judgment, that neither Leung nor Yau intended to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, or bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.  Both elements are mandatory parts of the LegCo Oath.  But not only that – they actually constitute the core substantive requirement of article 104 of the Basic Law:

“ When assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.”

7. On 18 October 2016, the President of the LegCo (elected to his office after the oath taking incident described above) gave a written “ruling”, after obtaining senior counsel’s advice, that “[Leung and Yau] could not be serious about their oath and were unwilling to be bound by it” (paragraph 6), and their oaths were invalid.  Nonetheless, he said he was “prepared to allow Mr LEUNG and Ms YAU to take their oath afresh at a Council meeting if they put forward their requests in writing” (paragraph 7), which requests Leung and Yau immediately made on the same day.

8. As is only too well-known, these events triggered the urgent commencement by the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Justice of two sets of proceedings below on 18 October 2016, which were described in some detail in paragraphs 9 to 12 of the judgment below, as well as an interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPCSC”), pursuant to article 67(4) of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and article 158(1) of the Basic Law, of the true meaning of article 104 on 7 November 2016 (“the Interpretation”).

9. The judgment below

After an expedited hearing, the judge concluded in his judgment that what Leung and Yau did amounted to their respectively declining or “wilfully” omitting to take the LegCo Oath when duly requested to do so.  The consequence of what they did, the judge decided, is governed by section 21 of the Ordinance:

“ Any person who declines or neglects to take an oath duly requested which he is required to take by this Part, shall-

(a) if he has already entered on his office, vacate it, and
(b) if he has not entered on his office, be disqualified from entering on it.”

10. Rejecting an argument to the contrary, the judge decided that once a person declines or neglects to take the relevant oath when duly requested to do so, he is automatically regarded as having vacated his office in question under section 21.  In other words, what Leung and Yau did on 12 October 2016 led automatically, by operation of law under section 21, to the vacation of their respective offices as Legislative Councillor.

11. In those circumstances, the judge agreed with the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Justice that contrary to his ruling dated 18 October 2016, the President of the LegCo had no power to give Leung and Yau a second chance to take the LegCo Oath again.  The judge rejected various arguments raised by Leung and Yau, including their main argument based on the non-intervention principle, and decided the proceedings in favour of the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Justice by granting declaratory and other relief against the President, “on the basis that Mr Leung and Ms Yau have already vacated the office as a member of the LegCo, and are not entitled to act as a member of the LegCo” (paragraph 130(2)(a)).  In other words, Leung and Yau have lost their seats in the LegCo, their offices are vacant and there will be by-elections.

The arguments on appeal

12. Aggrieved by the judge’s decision, Leung and Yau appealed.  Mr Hectar Pun SC (Mr Anson YY Wong with him), for Leung, essentially argued that the principle of non-intervention applied to the present case so that the judge was wrong to interfere with the internal workings or business of the LegCo, that is, the taking or the retaking of the LegCo Oath by Leung.  Mr Pun accepted that the principle of nonintervention as applied in Hong Kong “is subject to the constitutional requirements of the [Basic Law]” (paragraph 12(1) of his skeleton arguments), but he emphasised that in the present case, the constitutional requirement under article 104 of the Basic Law was simply “not engaged” because the dispute here was not about whether his client had taken the LegCo Oath – he had not.  Rather, the issue was about the consequence of his failure to do so, which turned on whether Leung had declined or neglected to take the LegCo Oath – in which case section 21 of the Ordinance would be triggered and his client would be obliged to vacate his seat.  Mr Pun submitted that section 21 does not form part of the constitutional requirement under article 104.  He argued that the present case was not distinguishable from the English case of Bradlaugh v Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271, where the English court refused to interfere with an oath taking dispute between Parliament and one of its members.

13. Mr Pun further argued neither the Clerk nor the President had determined that Leung had declined or neglected to take the LegCo Oath on 12 October 2016, whereas Leung had indicated in evidence that he had been “ready, prepared and willing” to take the Oath afresh at the next meeting on 19 October 2016 and had not “declined” or “neglected” to do so.  Furthermore, the President had indicated in his capacity as the oath administrator that he was prepared to allow Leung to take the Oath afresh on 19 October 2016.  All these matters were internal business of the LegCo in which the courts cannot intervene.

14. Mr Pun took the further point, relying on Makucha v Sydney Water Corporation [2013] NSWCA 177, that even if a LegCo member had declined or neglected to take the LegCo Oath, there was to be no automatic vacation of office.  Rather, section 21 merely requires the member to vacate it.  Mr Pun submitted that the member had to resign or the President could make a declaration, pursuant to article 79(1) of the Basic Law, that the member was “no longer qualified for the office” as he or she had “[lost] the ability to discharge his or her duties as a result of … [section 21]”.

15. Mr Pun also submitted that section 73 of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap 542), based on which one set of proceedings below was commenced, does not confer any jurisdiction on the court to determine matters such as whether a LegCo member has been disqualified from being a member or has ceased to be one, and does not therefore provide a bypass to the non-intervention principle.  He argued that as Leung had not been “disqualified” under section 21 of the Ordinance, section 73(1) simply had no application.  Section 73(1) is only applicable after a declaration under article 79(1) of the Basic Law has been made by the President as described above.  In any event, section 73(1) does not give the Chief Executive any locus to sue.

16. Mr Pun further argued that the judge was wrong in usurping the fact-finding function of the President regarding whether Leung had declined or neglected to take the LegCo Oath.

17. Insofar as may be necessary but not otherwise, Mr Pun relied on the Interpretation, particularly paragraph 2(3) and (4) to say that whether an oath taker has fallen foul of section 21 by declining to take the LegCo Oath is a matter for the Clerk or President, but not the court to decide.  However, insofar as the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Justice sought to make a case against his appeals based on the Interpretation, Mr Pun raised the issues of whether the Interpretation has retrospective effect in the sense that it covers the present case now before the court, and whether it is truly an interpretation falling within the meaning of article 158 of the Basic Law (or merely an interpretation in name but an amendment of the Basic Law in substance).

18. Finally, in written submissions, Mr Pun also prayed in aid article 77 of the Basic Law regarding members of the LegCo’s immunity from suit, and argued that the immunity covered the oath taking event in the present case.

19. Mr Philip Dykes SC (Mr Jeffrey Tam with him), for Yau, also relied on the principle of non-intervention.  Essentially, Mr Dykes submitted that oath taking is an internal business of the LegCo.  Primarily, it is for the Clerk or the President to determine whether an oath has been validly taken, and in particular, whether the member has declined or neglected to take the oath.  Mr Dykes accepted that once a decision has been made by the Clerk or the President, the court has the jurisdiction to decide whether article 104 of the Basic Law has been complied with.  However, Mr Dykes submitted, neither the Clerk nor the President has made any such decision.  It is simply premature for the court to intervene in the matter.

20. Likewise, counsel submitted, an application made under section 73 of the Legislative Council Ordinance is, except in the case of a member’s resignation, predicated on a declaration by the President under article 79 of the Basic Law.  In the present case, the President has made no such declaration.

21. As Mr Benjamin Yu SC (Mr Johnny Mok SC, Mr Jimmy Ma and Mr Jenkin Suen with him) for the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Justice submitted, the applicants’ arguments essentially raised several subject matters, that is, the non-intervention principle; the role of the oath administrator; whether vacation of the office is automatic under section 21 of the Ordinance; the scope of application of section 73 of the Legislative Council Ordinance; and the immunity from suit under article 77 of the Basic Law.  Counsel submitted that the appellants’ arguments were unsustainable.

The principle of non-intervention

22. The principle of nonintervention has been dealt with by the courts in recent years: Leung Kwok Hung v President of Legislative Council [2007] 1 HKLRD 387; Cheng Kar Shun v Li Fung Ying [2011] 2 HKLRD 555; Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, CACV 123/2012, 1 February 2013 (CA); affirmed on appeal: (2014) 17 HKCFAR 689 (CFA).  It is an established principle of common law which is of seminal importance and high constitutional significance.  Historically, it was derived from or justified by historical development, functional necessity, the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and (in the United Kingdom) the sovereignty of Parliament.  The preferred view in a jurisdiction like Hong Kong now is to justify it on the common law principle of separation of powers.  The principle makes good constitutional as well as practical sense.  Under it, the court respects and recognises the exclusive authority of the legislature in managing its own internal processes in the conduct of its business.  The court will not intervene to rule on the regularity or irregularity of the internal processes of the legislature but will leave it to determine exclusively for itself matters of this kind.  On a practical level, this principle allows the legislature to be left freely to manage and to resolve its internal affairs, free from intervention by the courts and from the possible disruption, delays and uncertainties which could result from such intervention.  Freedom from these problems is both desirable and necessary in the interest of the orderly, efficient and fair disposition of the legislature’s business.  Leung Kwok Hung (CFA), paragraphs 27 to 30.

23. In the United Kingdom where Parliament (or more precisely, the Queen in Parliament), replacing the absolute monarchy in old times, is supreme and sovereign, a further explanation for this principle of non-intervention is that it gives effect to Parliament’s supremacy and sovereignty.  In the context of Parliament’s law making function, the court’s role there is confined to interpreting and applying what Parliament has enacted.  When an enactment is passed there is finality unless and until it is amended or repealed by Parliament:  The Bahamas District of the Methodist Church v Symonette [2000] 5 LRC 196, 207h208a.

24. However, in a jurisdiction like Hong Kong where a written constitution (that is, the Basic Law), rather than the legislature, is supreme, where the rule of law reigns and where the courts are given under the constitution the independent power of adjudication, this principle of non-intervention has its own inherent limit.

25. First and foremost, the supremacy of the Basic Law means that no one – the legislature included – is above the Basic Law.  In other words, where a constitutional requirement under the Basic Law is in issue, even the legislature cannot act contrary to that requirement under the Basic Law.  Secondly, given that the courts are given under the constitution the independent power of adjudication of the Special Administrative Region, the question of whether that constitutional requirement has been complied with or breached is a matter which it is both the power and responsibility of the courts to decide.  As the Court of Final Appeal importantly pointed out in Leung Kwok Hung, paragraph 32:

Article 104 is a constitutional requirement

26. In the present case, there cannot be any doubt that article 104 of the Basic Law lays down a constitutional requirement.  Article 104 is found in Chapter IV of the Basic Law setting out the political structure of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.  It contains six sections, dealing respectively with the Chief Executive, the Executive Authorities, the Legislature, the Judiciary, District Organizations and lastly, Public Servants.  In essence, it covers everyone who is empowered to and charged with the responsibility for running the Special Administrative Region.  At the very end of this long chapter, one finds article 104, which expressly requires that when assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the LegCo, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary to, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law and swear allegiance to the Special Administrative Region.

27. As the judge correctly explained (paragraphs 31 to 33), the taking of an oath and pledging of allegiance are serious matters.  When taking an oath, no less a promissory oath such as the LegCo Oath, both the form and the substance matter greatly.  The requirement under article 104 is plainly designed to secure the genuine, solemn and sincere declaration and pledge by the holders of the important offices mentioned in that article to do their utmost, in accordance with the Basic Law, to discharge the high responsibilities entrusted to them in running the Special Administrative Region in their respective roles assigned under the Basic Law.  Article 104 clearly lays down a constitutional requirement that an oath must be taken in accordance with what is required under that article.  Moreover, it says “when assuming office”, the oath must be taken.  It must mean that taking the oath is a prerequisite and precondition to the assumption of office.

28. All this is now put beyond doubt by the Interpretation.

Consequence of non-compliance is part of the constitutional requirement

29. The Interpretation gives the true meaning of article 104.  Paragraph 2(3) of the Interpretation specifically sets out the consequence of an oath taker’s declining to take the relevant oath – automatic disqualification, as part of the true meaning of article 104.  It conclusively defeats Mr Pun’s argument that the consequence of a failure to take the relevant oath as required by article 104 does not form part of the constitutional requirement, so that the principle of non-intervention applies.

30. Furthermore, article 104 says the oath must be taken “in accordance with law”.  The relevant provisions in the Ordinance actually predated the drafting of the Basic Law.  When article 104 refers to law, the drafters must have in mind the provisions in the Ordinance.  Section 21(a) of the Ordinance says that if an office holder declines or neglects to take the relevant oath, he shall vacate his office.  That is perfectly consistent with article 104.  Since article 104 specifically refers to the implementing law, it provides another reason for rejecting Mr Pun’s argument that article 104 is not engaged but only section 21(a) of the Ordinance is – and therefore the principle of nonintervention still applies.  It is neither right nor realistic to look at article 104 without looking at its implementing law (in the present case, the relevant provisions in the Ordinance) together, or to look at the statutory provisions without looking at article 104 at the same time, in deciding whether the constitutional requirement under article 104 has been satisfied.

31. Mr Pun argued that “law” in the phrase “in accordance with law” only includes sections 16 and 19 of the Ordinance, but not section 21.  With respect, this is taking far too narrow a reading of article 104.  “Law” in article 104 must be a reference to the whole of the implementing law, including in particular that part of the law which prescribes the consequence of a failure to take the oath in question (that is, section 21).  As Mr Yu submitted, when article 104 lays down a requirement, the consequence of failing to meet that requirement is necessarily part and parcel of the requirement itself.  The principle of nonintervention cannot prevent the court from adjudicating on the consequence of a failure to meet the constitutional requirement.

A matter for the court to decide

32. Since articles 19(1) and (2) and 80 of the Basic Law vest the independent judicial power of the Special Administrative Region in the courts, giving the courts “jurisdiction over all cases in the Region”, and establishing them as the judiciary of the Region, “exercising the judicial power of the Region”, it is for the courts, not anyone else, to determine whether the constitutional requirement described above has been satisfied.

33. This disposes of three arguments mounted on behalf of Leung and Yau.  First, as mentioned, the courts cannot shrink from their constitutional duty to adjudicate on the question of whether the constitutional requirement under article 104 has been satisfied by not intervening in the present dispute in the name of the principle of non-intervention or separation of powers.  The Basic Law, not the legislature, is supreme.  Secondly, it also disposes of the further argument that it is for the oath administrator (that is, the Clerk or the President) to determine whether Leung and Yau have respectively taken a valid oath, and if not, whether they have respectively declined or neglected to take the oath.  Thirdly, it also disposes of the more limited argument raised by Mr Dykes that before the oath administrator makes a decision on the issues just described, it is premature to invite the court to intervene.  Plainly, section 21 says none of these.  Nor does the principle of nonintervention require any such interpretation be put on section 21, as the principle simply has no application given that a constitutional requirement is involved.

34. All these arguments must be rejected.

Paragraph 2(4) of the Interpretation

35. Mr Pun relied on paragraph 2(4) of the Interpretation to back his argument that it is for the oath administrator, rather than the court, to decide whether the LegCo Oath has been validly taken, or whether the (purported) oath taker has declined or neglected to take the oath.  I reject the argument.  Paragraph 2(4) of the Interpretation reads in Chinese:

“宣誓必須在法律規定的監誓人面前進行。監誓人負有確保宣誓合法進行的責任，對符合本解釋和香港特別行政區法律規定的宣誓，應確定為有效宣誓；對不符合本解釋和香港特別行政區法律規定的宣誓，應確定為無效宣誓，並不得重新安排宣誓。”

36. It is clear from the Chinese version, particularly the use of the words “應確定” (which is better rendered as “should confirm/affirm”), that paragraph 2(4) seeks to emphasise the important administrative duty of the oath administrator to ensure that the oath taker has taken the relevant oath properly and validly in full accordance with the Interpretation and the law, and that when the office holder declines to take the oath (paragraph 2(3)), the oath administrator must resolutely say so and refuse to make any administrative arrangement for the retaking of the oath.  What it plainly does not say is it gives the oath administrator any judicial power of the Special Administrative Region to determine whether the oath taken is in accordance with the requirements of the Basic Law and the Ordinance.  Still less does it take away the courts’ judicial power of the Special Administrative Region, granted under the Basic Law, to adjudicate on a dispute.

37. Neither does the Interpretation give the oath administrator any fact-finding role in any judicial sense.  In other words, it does not give the oath administrator a judicial power of the Special Administrative Region to make any finding of fact.  Nor does it constitute the oath administrator as a sort of administrative tribunal of fact (subjecting him thereby to all that standard administrative law requires of such a tribunal of fact to observe by way of procedural fairness etc).  Still less does it exclude the courts’ judicial power, conferred under the Basic Law, to make the relevant findings of fact.

38. If anything, paragraph 4 highlights the absolute importance of full compliance with the oath taking requirements under article 104 and the implementing law.  Indeed, one may ask rhetorically: if the oath administrator is required, as indeed he is under paragraph 2(4), to use his utmost to ensure compliance, how much more are the courts of the Special Administrative Region expected and required to do so?

39. In the final analysis, what is at stake is the compliance of a constitutional requirement of great significance.  In any given set of facts, this can admit of one correct answer only.  There is no room for a court to simply sit back without correcting an answer given by the oath administrator which the court considers to be wrong, at the expense of the constitutional requirement.  What is in issue is squarely a judicial matter which the courts alone are given the judicial power of the Special Administrative Region under the Basic Law to determine.  What is involved is not an ordinary judicial review type of situation where the court only conducts a Wednesbury unreasonableness review.  Rather, there can be only one right answer when the issue of compliance with the constitutional requirement is raised and nothing short of a full merit review will suffice.  The court, according to the Basic Law, is the ordained organ to determine the question.  

40. Of course, what I have said above does not prevent at all a court from, when hearing a dispute on the validity of an oath taken or one regarding whether the oath taker has declined or refused to take the oath when duly requested to do so, receiving evidence from the oath administrator on what his views are and the reasons for those views, insofar as they are relevant and admissible, and according them weight accordingly.

Both Leung and Yau have declined to take the Oath

41. On the facts, there can be no dispute that both Leung and Yau have declined respectively to take the LegCo Oath.  They have put forward no argument to dispute this.  Nor can they.  There can be no innocent explanation for what they uttered and did on 12 October 2016.  What has been done was done deliberately and intentionally.  This conclusion, reached by the judge after careful consideration, is unassailable.

Disqualification forthwith and automatic vacation of office

42. As a matter of law and fact, Leung and Yau have failed the constitutional requirement.  They are caught by paragraph 2(3) of the Interpretation as well as section 21 of the Ordinance which gives effect to the constitutional requirement.  Under the former, they were automatically disqualified forthwith from assuming their offices.  Under the latter, they “shall … vacate [their respective offices].”  There is therefore no question of allowing them to retake the LegCo Oath.

43. That leaves only the question of whether vacation of office under section 21 is automatic.  This is a necessary plank to Mr Pun’s and Mr Dykes’ procedural argument, based on section 15(1)(e) of the Legislative Council Ordinance, that a declaration by the President under article 79(1) of the Basic Law is a prerequisite to any proceedings under section 73 of the Legislative Council Ordinance.

44. I agree with the judge that vacation of office is automatic.  It simply serves no useful purpose to require a further step to be taken by the person in question to vacate his office.  By definition, this is someone who has declined or wilfully neglected to do the very first and basic thing required of him or her when assuming office, that is, to take the oath when duly requested to do so.  There is simply no point in requiring him or her to take the further step of vacating the office.  To do so would simply invite further dispute as well as create confusion and uncertainties.  The Australian case of Makucha is not binding on this court.  It was dealing with a totally different situation, and the court there was simply expressing an obiter view without any reasoning (paragraph 18).  It is fair to say that the court there was mainly concerned with upholding the judicial acts done by the judge below the validity of whose judicial oath was called into question.

Article 79(1) of the Basic Law

45. I reject the further argument based on article 79(1) of the Basic Law.  With respect, one only needs to read the Chinese text of article 79(1) to see that it plainly does not apply to the present type of situation.  Disqualification under section 21 is miles away from “無力履行職務” (“loses the ability to discharge his or her duties”) in article 79(1).

Section 73 of the Legislative Council Ordinance

46. In any event, I reject the argument that the scope of application of section 73(1) is limited to those situations set out in section 15 of the Legislative Council Ordinance.  It does not say so.  The fallacy of the argument is to treat section 15 as being exhaustive.  It is not.

47. Given my views above, the arguments over the scope of application of section 73 of the Legislative Council Ordinance are of little significance so far as the principle of non-intervention is concerned.  It is unnecessary to resort to section 73 to get round, as it were, the principle of nonintervention.  When a constitutional requirement is at stake, this court’s jurisdiction is not founded on the legislature’s voluntary concession of jurisdiction.  This court’s jurisdiction is conferred by the Basic Law, the exercise of which is a matter of constitutional duty, which is not restrained by the common law principle of nonintervention.

48. Section 73 is of significance in the arguments raised in these appeals also for a procedural reason.  It is said that section 73 only gives the Secretary for Justice, but not the Chief Executive, the locus to sue.  Further, it is said that section 73(7) excludes all other forms of proceedings.

49. All I wish to say is this.  I accept that proceedings under section 73 may only be brought by the Secretary for Justice or an elector, but not the Chief Executive in his official capacity as such.  However, I do not agree that apart from section 73, no proceedings can be brought by the Chief Executive.  Given the Chief Executive’s constitutional role under article 48(2) of the Basic Law (to be responsible for the implementation of the Basic Law and other laws), any attempted restriction on the Chief Executive’s right to take steps, including the commencement of court proceedings, to implement the Basic Law must be incompatible with article 48(2) and therefore invalid.  Plainly, section 21J of the High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) entitles the Chief Executive to sue.  On its proper construction, section 73(7) does not prevent the Chief Executive from doing so.

50. In any dispute, one must look at the facts concerned and the relief one seeks to determine whether proceedings should be commenced under section 73 of the Legislative Council Ordinance, or under section 21J of the High Court Ordinance by means of an application for judicial review (section 21K(1)(b) of the High Court Ordinance), or both.

Immunity from suit under article 77

51. Immunity from suit enjoyed by legislators under article 77 of the Basic Law has no relevance in the present dispute.  The article gives members of the LegCo immunity from legal action in respect of their statements at meetings of the Council.  It is neither necessary nor desirable to define the scope of immunity conferred by that article in these appeals.  One thing is clear.  The Basic Law must be read as a whole.  Article 77 must be read together with article 104.  Given the importance of article 104 as explained above, it is simply unarguable that the drafters of the Basic Law intended to permit members of the LegCo – yet not anyone else as article 77 only applies to them – to get round the constitutional requirement on oath taking laid down in article 104 via the backdoor of article 77.  It would make a mockery of article 104 and serve no discernable, meaningful purpose.  Thus analysed, the old English case of Bradlaugh v Gossett, a case heavily relied on by Mr Pun and Mr Dykes, loses much if not all of its relevance in the present debate.  First, the English court there was not faced with a constitutional requirement.  Secondly, Parliament is supreme and sovereign in the United Kingdom.  The English court was simply not in a position to adjudicate on the dispute between Parliament and its member in question.  In any event, the English case is not binding on this court, and insofar as may be necessary, I would, with respect, decline to follow it.

The Interpretation

52. Finally, I turn to Mr Pun’s arguments on the Interpretation.

53. First, the Interpretation, by definition, sets out the true and proper meaning of article 104 from day one.  The question of whether it applies “retrospectively” to any given set of facts whether pending before the court or not therefore cannot and does not arise, save for the situation specifically provided in article 158(3) of the Basic Law, which is not the case here. As the Court of Final Appeal explained in Lau Kong Yung v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 300, 326D:

“The Interpretation, being an interpretation of the relevant provisions, dates from 1 July 1997 when the Basic Law came into effect.  It declared what the law has always been.”

54. Secondly, regarding Mr Pun’s argument that an interpretation only applies retrospectively if it merely clarifies the law in question but not when it supplements it, this submission has no support from the authorities.  The Court of Final Appeal said in Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen (2001) 4 HKCFAR 211, 222J223C:

“ The Standing Committee’s power to interpret the Basic Law is derived from the Chinese Constitution and the Basic Law.  In interpreting the Basic Law, the Standing Committee functions under a system which is different from the system in Hong Kong.  As has been pointed out, under the Mainland system, legislative interpretation by the Standing Committee can clarify or supplement laws.  Where the Standing Committee makes an interpretation of a provision of the Basic Law, whether under art. 158(1) which relates to any provision, or under art. 158(3) which relates to the excluded provisions, the courts in Hong Kong are bound to follow it.  Thus, the authority of the Standing Committee to interpret the Basic Law is fully acknowledged and respected in the Region.  This is the effect of the Basic Law implementing the ‘one country, two systems’ principle as was held by the Court in Lau Kong Yung.  Both systems being within one country, the Standing Committee’s interpretation made in conformity with art. 158 under a different system is binding in and part of the system in the Region.”

55. No distinction is drawn between the two types of situations under discussion.  The suggested distinction by Mr Pun must be rejected.

56. Thirdly, as to the submission that the Interpretation is only an interpretation in name but an amendment of the Basic Law in substance which can only be done by the National People’s Congress in accordance with article 159 of the Basic Law, this argument does not even get off the evidential ground and must be rejected.  Here, as explained in Chong Fung Yuen in the passage cited above, one is in the interface of “one country two systems”, and, in particular, one is concerned with the other system – that is, the civil law system practised on the Mainland, when it comes to an interpretation by the NPCSC.  When the NPCSC interprets the Basic Law, it is operating under the Mainland’s civil law system.

57. In the absence of any evidence to show what, under a civil law system, particularly the civil law system practised on the Mainland, is regarded as the proper scope of an interpretation of the present type, one simply has no material to argue, let alone to conclude, that what has been done has gone outside the permissible scope of an interpretation.  The view of a common law lawyer, untrained in the civil law system, particularly the civil law system practised on the Mainland, is, with respect, simply quite irrelevant.  

58. But more importantly, this present argument raises an a priori question of whether under the Basic Law, the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region have ever been vested with the jurisdiction to determine whether an interpretation officially promulgated as such by the NPCSC in accordance with article 67(4) of the Constitution and article 158 of the Basic Law and the procedure therein is invalid on the ground under discussion.  Apart from citing to the court a passage in Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 4, 26A-B which must be read together with Ng Ka Ling (No 2) (1999) 2 HKCFAR 141, where the Court of Final Appeal clarified in no uncertain terms that the courts in Hong Kong cannot question “the authority of the National People’s Congress or the Standing Committee to do any act which is in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law and the procedure therein” (p 142E), Mr Pun has simply made no submission on this fundamental question of jurisdiction.

59. In my view, the court has no jurisdiction to deal with the issue raised.

Disposal

60. For all these reasons, I would dismiss these appeals with costs.

Hon Lam VP:

61. I respectfully agree with the judgment of the Chief Judge and for the reasons he gave the appeals must be dismissed. In view of the constitutional importance of these appeals and the apparent misapprehension on the scope of the principle of non-intervention, I would add some observations of my own.

62. As accepted by Mr Dykes (but disputed by Mr Pun), in Hong Kong the principle of non-intervention is only a self-restraint imposed by the courts in the exercise of jurisdiction rather than a matter that goes to jurisdiction.

63. The Basic Law is the foundation of all executive, legislative and judicial authorities in Hong Kong.  As my Lord the Chief Judge pointed out, the judicial power of the courts in Hong Kong and the correspondent adjudicative authority are derived from article 80 of the Basic Law. Further, under article 85, the courts shall exercise judicial power independently and free from any interference.  In the exercise of judicial power, judges must adjudicate issues strictly in accordance with laws, and nothing else. The laws, as set out in article 8 are, subject to a very important rider, the common law and statutes.  The rider is that these laws must not contravene the Basic Law.

64. Thus, as explained by the Chief Judge, the LegCo, whilst designated as the legislative authority under the Basic Law, must also be subject to the Basic Law.  In this respect, our LegCo is different from Parliament of the United Kingdom.

65. The Basic Law does not confer any judicial authority on the LegCo.  Hence, in respect of issues arising from disputes concerning compliance with the Basic Law, the LegCo does not have any judicial authority.  Whilst article 79 of the Basic Law does confer authority on the President of the LegCo to declare a member no longer qualified for office in certain specified circumstances, it is not the same as saying that the President has judicial authority to determine all questions relating to membership of the LegCo.  A clear example where membership of LegCo is to be determined by courts through a judicial process is election petition concerning LegCo elections.

66. Since the source of the courts’ judicial power is derived from the Basic Law, a judge has a constitutional duty to consider the constitutionality of legislation passed by the LegCo if it is an issue arising from the facts of a case before him.  Likewise, where there is a complaint as to the non-compliance with a constitutional prerequisite before assumption of office, our courts are duty-bound to examine the same according to law. As explained by the Chief Judge, article 104 is an important constitutional requirement and the courts have a constitutional duty to uphold the same.

67. The exercise of such judicial power should not be perceived as the courts being embroiled in political disputes.  In the judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in Powell v Mc Cormack (1969) 395 US 486 cited by Mr Dykes, Warren CJ held at pp.548-9 that the determination of a Congressman’s right to sit required no more than an interpretation of the Constitution which fell within the traditional role accorded to courts to interpret the law.  Even if the exercise of such power conflicted with the resolution of the Congress, Warren CJ said these:

“The alleged conflict that such an adjudication may cause cannot justify the courts’ avoiding their constitutional responsibility…. For, as we noted in Baker v Carr … it is the responsibility of this Court to act as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.”

68. As I have said, in adjudicating on these issues the courts only concern themselves with legal questions, and the issues before us in these appeals are whether the requirement in article 104 has been complied with and if not, what are the consequences. In our deliberations, we address legal arguments advanced before us and apply the law (including the Interpretation, which upon its pronouncement becomes part of our laws) strictly as we find them.  It is for this very reason that the Chief Judge had to stop Mr Yu when counsel at one stage unwittingly treaded beyond the proper scope of legal arguments by quoting from Socrates on abuse of democracy.  It is important that we keep politics out of the judicial process.

69. Nor should the exercise of judicial power in these instances be regarded as the court’s intervention into the internal affairs of the LegCo.  The principle of non-intervention is a principle governing the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, placing importance on the integrity and efficiency of the legislative process.  Thus, in cases where the intervention of the court would disrupt the legislative process as in Cheng Kar Shun v Li Fung Ying [2011] 1 HKLRD 555 and Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council (2014) 17 HKCFAR 689, the court would refrain from intervention.  But the court would not shy away from examining the products of such process as in cases where the courts examined the constitutionality of a piece of legislation. In Leung Kwok Hung, the Court of Final Appeal highlighted at [39] to [43] that in cases where the legislative authority is subject to a written constitution (as in the case of our LegCo), the judicial authority will determine whether the legislature has a particular power, privilege or immunity though it would not exercise jurisdiction to determine the occasion or the manner of the exercise of the same.

70. The Court of Final Appeal expressed the principle of non-intervention in these terms at [28] by reference to the relationship between the legislature and the courts:

“….This relationship includes the principle that the courts will recognise the exclusive authority of the legislature in managing its own internal processes in the conduct of its business …The corollary is the proposition that the courts will not intervene to rule on the regularity or irregularity of the internal processes of the legislature but will leave it to determine exclusively for itself matters of this kind…”

71. The Court of Final Appeal also stressed that the principle of non-intervention is necessarily subject to constitutional requirements, see [32].  This has been consistently regarded by our courts as the limits of that principle, see the decision at first instance in Leung Kwok Hung v President of the Legislative Council [2012] 3 HKLRD 483, at [36]; at the Court of Appeal, in CACV 123 of 2012, 1 Feb 2013, at [24]; Cheng Kar Shun v Li Fung Ying, supra at [220].

72. For the reasons given by the Chief Judge, the non-compliance with the oath-taking prerequisite in article 104 and its consequence are matters of constitutional requirement which the courts have a constitutional duty to examine when it is an issue in a case coming before us.  Compliance with such constitutional requirement is not merely a matter of internal process of the LegCo.  Oath taking is not simply a requirement of LegCo’s internal rules.  Though it took place within the walls of the LegCo Building, it is a matter of immense importance to the whole Hong Kong Special Administrative Region including the Government as well as its general public because the requirement underpins the allegiance owed to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and the sincerity and integrity of the oath taker in upholding the Basic Law.  Without the oath properly taken, the member concerned could not assume office and no authority is conferred upon him or her to act as our lawmaker.

73. As illustrated by election petition cases, membership of LegCo is not an internal matter for the LegCo.  The courts must intervene when non-compliance with article 104 is brought to our attention.

74. The soundness of this analysis is easily borne out by examining a hypothetical case where a member is wrongly ruled by the Clerk or President to have failed to comply with article 104 and disqualified under Section 21 accordingly. It is hard to see why in such circumstances such a member cannot come to court to seek relief notwithstanding that the oath taking took place within the walls of the LegCo Building.  Mr Dykes and Mr Pun readily agreed that the court must intervene in such circumstances.

75. In the converse situation, where a member should have been disqualified but was not so disqualified, electors in the electoral constituency of that member should, as a matter of law, be entitled to have a by-election for the seat and other candidates should also be entitled to run for the same.  Hence, it is impossible to characterise the oath taking as a mere internal affair or a matter in the internal process of the LegCo.  There is no reason why the courts should refrain from intervening in such circumstances.

76. Properly understood, Bradlaugh v Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271 on which Mr Pun placed great reliance cannot stand in the way of the above analysis.  What was in issue in that case was the resolution of the House of Commons excluding a member from the House until he shall engage not to attempt to take the oath in disregard of the resolution of the House then in force.  What happened was that Mr Bradlaugh was prohibited from taking the oath because he did not believe in the existence of a Supreme Being, see AG v Bradlaugh (1885) 14 QBD 667, also the judgment of Stephen J in Bradlaugh v Gossett, supra at p.279. In that case, Mr Bradlaugh sued the Serjeant-at-Arms who excluded him from the House pursuant to the resolution of the House. It was in such context that Lord Coleridge CJ said at p.275: 

“What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be inquired into in a court of law… The jurisdiction of the Houses over their own members, their right to impose discipline within their walls, is absolute and exclusive.”

Coleridge CJ obviously regarded it as a matter of internal discipline as he said at pp.276-277:

“Consistently with all the statements in the claim, it may be that the plaintiff insisted on taking the oath in a manner and under circumstances which the House had a clear right to object to or prevent.”

At p.277 he also agreed with Stephen J’s broader analysis as to why the court should not examine the basis on which the House passed the resolution.  Stephen J proceeded on the assumption that there was inconsistency between the resolution and the Parliamentary Oaths Act and he ruled that the court should not intervene because

(a)The court could not do justice without infringing the dignity and independence of the House as it would necessitate the examination of the reasons for the House’s resolution, see pp.280-281;

(b)In respect of matters of parliamentary privilege in respect of affairs within the House of Commons, even if the House decided the same not in accordance with law, it would be akin to an error by a judge whose decision was not subject to any appeal, see p.284-286.

77. It should be noted that the courts did not hold that they had no jurisdiction to examine if the affirmation adopted by a member of the House was valid.  In earlier proceedings in Clarke v Bradlaugh (1881) 7 QBD 38, the court held that the affirmation by Mr Bradlaugh purportedly under section 4 of the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1870 was invalid as he was not a person falling within the scope of that section.  Though the actual result was overturned on appeal in the House of Lords reported in (1883) 8 App Cas 354 as the court held that the person who brought the proceedings had no locus to do so, the finding on the invalidity of the affirmation was not disturbed. Stephen J accepted that the courts had the power to make such decision in Bradlaugh v Gossett, supra, at pp.281 to 282.  Subsequently in AG v Bradlaugh (1885) 14 QBD 667, in proceedings brought by the Attorney General penalty was imposed by the Divisional Court on account of Mr Bradlaugh’s sitting and voting in the parliament despite his invalid affirmation and it was upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeal.  Thus, the reference to the court’s inability to investigate into what happened within the walls of the Parliament should not be taken too literally.

78. Whatever the position may be in respect of the relationship between the courts and the House of Commons in 19th century England, for the reasons already given, the respective roles of the courts in Hong Kong and the LegCo as prescribed by the Basic Law are different.  As the Chief Judge observed, LegCo is subject to the Basic Law. By reason of article 104, there is no right on the part of any elected member to assume office in LegCo without fulfilling the constitutional requirement under that article and the refusal or neglect to take the oath when duly requested would lead to vacation from office or disqualification.  Hence, it is not a matter of internal discipline.  Nor is it a matter of parliamentary privilege. Instead, it is a constitutional requirement which our courts have the constitutional responsibility to adjudicate on in the same way as the U.S. Supreme Court did in Powell v Mc Cormack, supra.

79. The above analysis also resolves the question as to identity of the decision maker under Section 21.  Though the oath administrator would have the power to administer the oath under Section 19, he is not given any judicial role in the determination if an oath taker has declined or neglected to take the oath.  In this connection, Section 21 does not say that an oath taker would be disqualified if he or she had, in the opinion of the oath administrator, declined or neglected to take the oath.  I agree with the Chief Judge that paragraph 2(4) of the Interpretation does not confer any judicial role upon the oath administrator and any dispute on the application of Section 21 has to be determined by the courts.  It also follows that in the determination of such dispute, the courts must conduct a full merit review with full opportunity for the parties to adduce relevant and admissible evidence on the issues instead of the limited review by way of traditional approach in a judicial review.

80. My analysis also reinforces the conclusion of the Chief Judge that Section 15 of the Legislative Council Ordinance is not exhaustive as to the circumstances in which a member is disqualified.  Though the scope of Section 73 is of little significance in the present appeals (as 2 sets of proceedings have been commenced in respect of each Interested Party), it would be helpful if we can give some guidance on the interface between Section 73 and Section 21J.

81. In my view, these statutory jurisdictions have a common origin in the prerogative writ of quo warranto by which the authority of a person holding a public office could be challenged in courts.  In Hong Kong, the prerogative writ has become obsolete and been largely (if not wholly) overtaken by statutory jurisdictions. Section 21J is a general provision, applicable to any public office created by any enactment whilst Section 73 specifically applies to a person acting or claiming to be entitled to act as a member of LegCo.  Proceedings under Section 21J must be brought by way of judicial review, see Section 21K(1) of the High Court Ordinance and they are subject to the rules governing applications for judicial review.  Leave is therefore required and it is subject to the usual time constraint in applications for judicial review.  On the other hand, Section 73 is to be brought by way of some other form of civil proceedings and leave is not required.  However, the time limit is 6 months: section 73(2) must be construed purposively as referring to 6 months from the date on which the person first acted or claimed to be entitled to act whilst disqualified, otherwise the time limit will be meaningless. Further, Section 73 proceedings can only be brought by an elector or the Secretary for Justice, see Section 73(1). In the case of proceedings by an elector, such proceedings would be stayed pending the payment of security for costs, a sum to be ordered by the court which shall not exceed $20,000 in respect of each member challenged, see Section 73(5) and (6).

82. Section 73(7) provides that proceedings within the scope of that section can only be brought in accordance with that section.  In other words, it would not be open to persons coming within the scope of this section to bring proceedings by other means like an application for judicial review under Section 21J.

83. However, the Court of Final Appeal in Albert Ho v Leung Chun Ying v Ho Chun Yan, Albert (2013) 16 HKCFAR 735 held that election petition is not the only means to challenge an election and judicial review is an available alternative for those who are not eligible to bring proceedings under section 33 of the Chief Executive Election Ordinance.  By the same token, it may be arguable that Section 73(7) does not preclude someone who is not an elector to commence proceedings under Section 21J in respect of a disqualified legislator.  As the Chief Judge observed, the Chief Executive is not a person who is entitled to proceed under Section 73.  He has to proceed under Section 21J to seek the remedy of declaration and injunction against the Interested Parties in HCAL 185/2016.

84. In any event, given that Section 73 was enacted to protect members of the LegCo against unlimited challenges to their offices (by way of security for costs and time limit for application), I believe even in cases where an applicant is outside the scope of that section and an application is brought by way of judicial review, the court must bear such protection in mind in assessing whether leave should be granted.  In particular, given that judicial review should not be permitted when an alternative remedy by way of Section 73 is available, the court should consider whether an applicant who is not an elector in the constituency of the member concerned should be allowed to make the challenge and enquire whether the Secretary for Justice or any elector is willing to bring proceedings under Section 73.  The court must also examine the locus standi of such an applicant carefully if neither the Secretary for Justice nor any elector in that constituency is willing to bring proceedings under Section 73.

Hon Poon JA:

85. I agree with the judgment of the Chief Judge and the judgment of Lam VP.  I would like to add a few words of my own on the principle of non-intervention in the Hong Kong context.

86. As the Court of Final Appeal pointed out in Leung Kwok Hung, supra, at [32], the common law principle of non-intervention is necessarily subject to the constitutional requirements in the Basic Law.  As our written constitution, the Basic law is supreme.  It binds all organs and branches of the government, including LegCo.  The court is the guardian of the Basic Law.  The court is constitutionally tasked to protect the provisions of the Basic Law and to ensure that all governmental organs and branches, including LegCo, stay within its bounds.

87. Being subject to the Basic Law, LegCo must uphold and abide by its provisions, always acting within its framework and fulfilling its constitutional requirements.  So must all LegCo Members, whether they are elected from functional constituencies or geographical constituencies through direct elections.  When disputes arise as to whether LegCo has acted in breach of the constitutional requirements in the Basic Law, such as passing a law which is contrary to certain provisions of the Basic Law, or whether individual LegCo Members have breached the constitutional requirements as mandated in the Basic Law, such as the present, the court has a constitutional duty to adjudicate and rule on the matters.  In so doing, the court does not seek to undermine the authority or function of LegCo as the legislature or diminish the mandate that the electors gave to the LegCo Members concerned.  Rather the court ensures that LegCo or the Members concerned exercise their powers lawfully in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the Basic Law.  Only thus can the public confidence in LegCo be maintained.  Only thus can the integrity of the very many important acts performed by LegCo be preserved.

Hon Cheung CJHC:

88. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with costs to all other parties (including the LegCo President for his costs for the hearing on 17 November 2016) together with a certificate for 3 counsel.  The costs order is made on a nisi basis and any application to vary it shall be dealt with by written submissions only.

89. As indicated at the conclusion of the hearing, we will hear any application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal tomorrow at 9:30 am.  All time requirements are abridged accordingly, and we will accept undertakings to file and serve the formal documents in lieu of actual filing or service before the hearing so long as draft documents are made available to the court and the opposite parties in advance.

Mr Benjamin Yu SC, Mr Johnny Mok SC, Mr Jimmy Ma and Mr Jenkin Suen, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the 1st and 2nd applicants in CACV 224 & 225/2016 and the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs in CACV 226 & 227/2016

Mr Hectar Pun SC and Mr Anson Wong Yu Yat, instructed by Ho Tse Wai and Partners, for the 1st interested party in CACV 224 & 225/2016 and the 2nd defendant in CACV 226 & 227/2016

Mr Philip Dykes SC and Mr Jeffrey Tam, instructed by Khoo & Co, for the 2nd interested party in CACV 224 & 225/2016 and the 1st defendant in CACV 226 & 227/2016

Lo & Lo, for the respondent in CACV 224 & 225/2016 and the 3rd defendant in CACV 226 & 227/2016, did not appear

(SCMP) December 13, 2016.

The pro-independence pair booted out of the Legislative Council after an unprecedented legal bid by the Hong Kong government have vowed to fight until the very end.

Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang, who earlier said they had reservations about a final appeal, announced on Tuesday they would take their legal battle against the government to the city’s top court.

The pair are expected to meet the press on Wednesday outside the High Court. They had earlier expressed concern about filing another appeal, saying further action could put the Court of Final Appeal in a difficult position and erode the city’s legal system if the case led to further legal interpretations by Beijing.

(Hong Kong Free Press) December 13, 2016.

Ousted lawmaker Baggio Leung Chung-hang has said that he and Yau Wai-ching will bring the legal battle that stripped them of their lawmaker status to the Court of Final Appeal. They will appeal on December 28, the last day the are able to file.

The pair were kicked out of the Legislative Council after they protested during their oath-taking ceremonies in October, changing the wording of their oaths in a way some deemed insulting to Chinese people. The government lodged a legal challenge against them, but they lost both at the Court of First Instance on November 15 and the Court of Appeal on November 30.

He told HKFP that he was not very concerned about the deposit they will have to pay to the court to begin the final appeal. Their battle with the government, consisting of four cases, may entail paying HK$400,000 for each case as a deposit.

But he said their legal team was debating whether the four cases could be considered as one case, so that they only have to pay one deposit.

“They said it could be argued, but they could not give me an answer – no one has ever debated this,” he said. “HK$400,000 is better, it is closer to what we are able to get – HK$1.6 million is beyond our ability. We will have to continue raising funds.”

He said they chose to announce the appeal on Wednesday, but they would only formally submit their appeal on December 28, the last day of the appeal deadline.

“The government led us by the nose in the previous two legal proceedings. They have a lot of time advantages. We faced time constraints [preparing] our legal arguments. We also could not apply for legal aid,” he said. “There is no need to let them lead us by the nose. Waiting until the last day also gives them a shorter time to look at our argument, which is also a good thing.”

He told HKFP on Monday that his team prepared the legal arguments last week.

“They are now doing pressure tests to see if the arguments are solid,” he said.

Before the ruling on first hearing was handed down, Beijing’s top legislature issued an interpretation of the Basic Law – Hong Kong’s de facto constitution – stating that lawmakers must be sworn-in solemnly and sincerely.

Previously, Leung said he was concerned that the Court of Final Appeal may seek another interpretation if the judges cannot answer the points raised before them.

The Legislative Council Secretariat last week demanded that they pay back, in two weeks, HK$1.86 million worth of salaries and operating funds that the legislature had paid the duo before they were ousted, after they lost the appeal.

But Leung said their lawyers advised them to wait for the legislature to send them legal letters and examine the arguments.

“I may give them back the tables [we bought],” he said.

Internet comments:

- Previously Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching said that there is a 7-figure dollar deposit for filing an final appeal. Their initial crowdfunding project to pay for the prior bill of $5 million (including the legal fees for the HKSAR government and the Legco president) had raised only around $300,000. So who is kind enough to pick up the remaining money plus the new bills (estimated to be $10 million)?

- They need to keep the court cases going because this is how they can use crowdfunding to raise more money to sustain their living styles. Without this, they become nobodies.

- "Doing pressure tests to see if arguments are solid"? The fatal flaw in Leung/Yau's case is this:

41. On the facts, there can be no dispute that both Leung and Yau have declined respectively to take the LegCo Oath.  They have put forward no argument to dispute this. Nor can they. There can be no innocent explanation for what they uttered and did on 12 October 2016. What has been done was done deliberately and intentionally.  This conclusion, reached by the judge after careful consideration, is unassailable.

How are they going to argue this? Their Ap Lei Chau accents?

(Nextplus) December 3, 2016.

This afternoon, Hong Kong Indigenous set up a street booth at the intersection of Ap Lei Street and Kwei Lin Street in the Sham Shui Po district. At first, they did not draw much attention. Then they were surrounded by a bunch of middle-aged uncles who expressed dissatisfaction with the four Hong Kong Indigenous members present. Obscenities were flying around as the uncles cursed Hong Kong Indigenous for "causing chaos in Hong Kong". The uncles called the Hong Kong Indigenous people "Chinese traitors" and demanded the removal of the surgical masks worn by the workers.

One uncle said: "Fuck you mother! You call yourself a Hongkonger? Fuck your mother's cunt! You say that you are a Hongkonger? Have you no shame?" Another uncle told the masked Hong Kong Indigenous members: "Take off your masks! Be forthright! If you are forthright, there is no fucking need to wear masks!"

As more and more people clustered around to watch, the police came to maintain order. The police told the uncles to calm down and assisted Hong Kong Indigenous to leave. The police said: "Dear neighbors, please don't cause unnecessary complications! Please make some way!" But the uncles were still riled up, shouting: "Make way for them to crawl away! Leave! Leave! Scram!"

The four Hong Kong Indigenous members maintained their calm and did not quarrel with the uncles. As they left under police escort, an uncle said: "I want to ask you why you don't go to Beijing ... if you hate China so much, you should go to Tiananmen Square! Don't come here! We don't welcome you!"

On Facebook, Hong Kong Indigenous wrote that their volunteers set up street booths in Sham Shui Po, Tai Wai and Sha Tin today to explain to the citizens about the oath of office brouhaha and the implications of the Interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress Standing Committee. In Sham Shui Po, their workers were provoked maliciously and pushed around, and some flags and poles were damaged. In consideration of the personal safety of the Hong Kong Indigenous volunteers and the citizens, the Sham Shui Po event was terminated prematurely.

Videos:

Nextplus OccupyCentral_7.htm (obscenities bleeped out)

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1152070384828323/

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1152071064828255/

https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1152100428158652/

https://www.facebook.com/WoXiZhongGuoJiXiangGangRen/videos/1266880330035944/

https://www.facebook.com/chuckyboyboy009/videos/1860858284161751/

Internet comments:

- As always, when you need the police to extract you from an angry mob, you call them Uncles. When you don't want the police to block your way, you call them Canines.

- As always, they wear masks while exercising their freedoms of expression and assembly as guaranteed by the Basic Law.

- What exactly are they afraid of such that they have to wear masks? Are they afraid that their parents will see them on television and then withhold their daily allowance money?

- In the video, there is an old man siding with Hong Kong Indigenous.

This man is a celebrity. Previously, he was photographed attending a banquet wearing the t-shirt of the DLLM Orchid (= a homonym of "Fuck Your Mother's Stinking Rotten Cunt") organization. Then he was interviewed on television in the role of the parent of a student at the Pui Ling School of the Precious Blood to express his support the freedom of expression for foul-mouthed teacher Alpais Lam without identifying that they are both with the DLLM Orchid. P.S. The bespectacled woman was also present in the Sham Shui Po video.

- Born In Times of Chaos Facebook: According to tips from Internet users, the four troublemakers are all unemployed welfare recipients who normally hang around the 7/11 Convenience Store on Fuk Wing Street. According to information, they were paid $200 each to cause trouble at the Hong Kong Indigenous street booth today.


(1) "Bespectacled Monster"
(2) "Human Wastrel"
(3) "White-headed Cheung"
(4) "Drug User Ming"

- What is this? Everything is based upon innuendos? Information from anonymous Internet users?

- This is as good as the other innuendo that the DLLM Orchid old man is either the father of foul-mouthed teacher Alpais Lam and/or the former district councilor who lost his post to DAB legislative councilor Chan Kam-lam. I particularly like the use of "and/or" here.

(Wen Wei Po) December 1, 2016.

Yesterday, 49-year-old entertainer William So Wing Hong announced that he and his wife Anita are expecting a baby. He said: "It is a boy. But I don't want the boy to be like me. It is better that he is more like his mother. As Ka-keung said, even if he isn't going to become a model, he can get my musical and fashion talents. But the future is too much to worry about. I don't know what the world will be like when my son grows up. What I need to do is not to create more rebellious persons for society. Simply put, I don't want to raise a Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching. I want thte boy to know right from wrong. You can be rebellious but you cannot reject your ancestry and do things that divides the nation. If he does that, I will personally punish him. Therefore I will learn to bring up my son well just like my elders. Even if the boy does not make a great contribution to society, at least he won't be disrupting social peace."

(Wen Wei Po) December 5, 2016.

William So said: "I noticed that someone said that as a soon-to-be parent, I did not consider the feelings of the parents of those whom I criticized. I want to ask: When those two young people charged into the Legislative Council with the blue banner shouting 'Shina' and 'Hong Kong is not China', did they ever consider the feelings of all the people in China?"

He said: "I am very sorry if what I said caused the parents of the two young persons to be unhappy. But I will not apologize, because those two were really wrong and they did not apologize."

(Wen Wei Po) (Wen Wei Po) December 5, 2016.

Leung Chung-hang quoted William So's song <I don't want to be happy by myself>: "I am unrestrained and I think highly of myself. I don't care if a certain guy doesn't like it."

Leung Chung-hang also wrote: "Although I do not take drugs, I cause my mother to worry all the time. And I am unable to share the family load with her. So I feel ashamed." His supporters agreed, and made comments such as: "Drug abusers tend to really patriotic" etc.

(Wen Wei Po) December 4, 2016.

With respect to the criticisms of his comments on Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching, William So responded: "First of all, I respect and I thank my fans for stopping and deleting those comments. I told my fans not to bother with that, because everyone has the freedom of expression. They can say whatever they want, and I am not going to die because of it! But it is pathetic that they they make the same comments ten times in a row. Hey, I am not blind and I can read!"

Is he unhappy? He said: "Buddhists learn to forgive people. They have their positions. I accidentally stepped on their idols and it is natural that they should be angry. Someday, they will eventually understand that Hong Kong needs harmony!"

Is he sorry for saying it? He said: "In my life, I have no regrets. I have no regrets! I, William So, am a forthright person. When I am wrong, I will admit it. If I am going to fight, I will stand and fight. I won't bring my team to Sai Wan and then leave in a taxi by myself. This is the right thing. How else am I supposed to teach my son?"

A friend told him that Internet users are bringing up his prior drug offense. He said: "I did it. I was arrested. There is no extradition treaty between Hong Kong and Taiwan, and I can choose not to return to Taiwan. But I went back to accept the legal consequences! Recently I applied for a visa to travel to the United States. I received a telephone call from the immigration officer who told me to do a physical exam. The report showed that I was drug-negative. I ultimately got my visa."

(Lingnan University Public Governance Programme) 1,015 Hong Kong residents aged 18 or over were interviewed by telephone October 3-10, 2016. Telephone numbers were randomly selected from the directory and then the last two digits of each telephone number is randomized. When contact is made with a household, an eligible individual is randomly selected within the household. The response rate was 32.1%.

Q1. How do you rate the legislative efficiency of this Legislative Council compared to the previous one?
2.6%: A lot better
16.9%: Somewhat better
31.8%: About the same
19.1%: Somewhat worse
13.2%: A lot worse
16.1%: Don't know/no opinion
0.3%: Refused to answer

Q2. How do you rate the relationship between the executive and legislative branches during this Legislative Council term compared to the previous one?
1.9%: A lot better
13.1%: Somewhat better
31.1%: About the same
23.6%: Somewhat worse
14.8%: A lot worse
15.3%: Don't know/no opinion
0.2%: Refused to answer

Q3. How would rate the monitoring of the government during this Legislative Council term compared to the previous one?
5.0%: A lot better
34.1%: Somewhat better
30.1%: About the same
10.2%: Somewhat worse
7.6%: A lot worse
12.8%: Don't know/no opinion
0.2%: Refused to answer

Q4. Some people think that filibustering at the Legislative Council delays the legislative process without any positive use. Other people think that filibustering stops the passage of objectionable legislation.
41.6%: Agree with the first position
42.9%: Agree with the second position
10.2%: Agree with neither position
4.9%: Don't know/no opinion
0.3%: Refused to answer

Q5. Some people thin that the China Liaison Office engages in mediating legislative election campaigns and therefore violates One Country Two Systems, Hong Kong Ruled By Hong Kong People. Other people think that this only shows that the Central Government cares about the Hong Kong Legco elections.
60.4%: Agree with the first position
22.3%: Agree with the second position
5.6%: Agree with neither position
10.8%: Don't know/no opinion
0.9%: Refused to answer

Q6. The recent Legco election had the highest voter turnout in history. What is the main reason?
16.9%: Dissatisfaction with government
11.7%: More young people voted
10.7%: More people care about society/politics
8.4%: Dissatisfaction with the current situation
4.1%: Everybody wants to express their opinions
3.4%: Influence of Occupy Central/Umbrella Movement
2.6%: Dissatisfaction with CY Leung
2.2%: Dissatisfaction with the past Legislative Council term
2.2%: Intervention by the Central Government
1.7%: Increase in civic awareness
1.6%: More young people care about society/politics
1.1%: More voters
1.1%: More young people were candidates
1.0%: Awakening of citizens
0.9%: Citizens want to vote for their favorite legislators
0.8%: More older people voted
0.7%: Dissatisfaction with the pro-establishment camp
0.7%: More election candidates
0.6%: Opposition to filibustering
0.5%: Dissatisfaction with livelihood issues
0.5%: Troublemaking
17.7%: Other reasons
8.6%: Don't know/no opinion
0.3%: Refused to answer

Q7. Compared to the period when Donald Tsang was Chief Executive, how much confidence do you have in the Hong Kong SAR government?
2.9%: A lot more confident
9.7%: Somewhat more confident
24.0%: Neither more or less
24.0%: Somewhat less confident
35.8%: A lot less confident
3.4%: Don't know/no opinion
0.1%: Refused to answer

Q8. Compared to the period when Donald Tsang was Chief Executive, how much confidence do you have in the Legislative Council?
2.5%: A lot more confident
10.8%: Somewhat more confident
31.2%: Neither more or less
26.3%: Somewhat less confident
22.1%: A lot less confident
7.1%: Don't know/no opinion
0.1%: Refused to answer

Q9. Compared to the period when Donald Tsang was Chief Executive, how much confidence do you have in the courts?
2.5%: A lot more confident
8.3%: Somewhat more confident
49.7%: Neither more or less
20.7%: Somewhat less confident
10.7%: A lot less confident
7.9%: Don't know/no opinion
0.2%: Refused to answer

Q10. Compared to the period when Donald Tsang was Chief Executive, how much confidence do you have in the Hong Kong Police?
5.8%: A lot more confident
12.6%: Somewhat more confident
32.1%: Neither more or less
21.8%: Somewhat less confident
23.3%: A lot less confident
4.2%: Don't know/no opinion
0.2%: Refused to answer

Q11. Compared to the period when Donald Tsang was Chief Executive, how much confidence do you have in the Independent Commission Against Corruption?
2.2%: A lot more confident
7.6%: Somewhat more confident
32.2%: Neither more or less
27.9%: Somewhat less confident
24.3%: A lot less confident
5.6%: Don't know/no opinion
0.2%: Refused to answer

Q12. Compared to the period when Donald Tsang was Chief Executive, how much confidence do you have in the Central Government?
5.6%: A lot more confident
7.7%: Somewhat more confident
35.8%: Neither more or less
17.0%: Somewhat less confident
29.7%: A lot less confident
4.0%: Don't know/no opinion
0.1%: Refused to answer

Q13. What do you think the next Chief Executive should give priority to initially?
31.7%: Land/housing problems
14.4%: Livelihood
7.4%: Social harmony/unifying society
4.5%: Economic problems
3.7%: Executive-legislative branch relationship
3.6%: Citizen-government relationship
3.3%: China-Hong Kong relationship
3.0%: Reform of political system
1.9%: Public preferences
1.2%: One County Two Systems/Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong
1.1%: Legislative Council issues
1.0%: Social welfare issues
0.9%: Senior citizen welfare issues
0.8%: Healthcare issues
0.7%: CY Leung's problems
0.7%: Wealth inequality
0.7%: Corruption problems
0.5%: Population problems
11.8%: Don't know/no opinion
6.8%: Don't know/no opinion
0.4%: Refused to answer

Q14. Who would you like to see be elected the next Chief Executive?
19.8%: John Tsang
4.9%: CY Leung
3.4%: Carrie Lam
3.2%: Japser Tsang
1.6%: Anthony Leung
1.5%: Andy Lau (actor)
0.9%: Regina Ip
0.8%: Audrey Eu
0.4%: Chow Yun-fat (actor)
0.4%: Rita Fan
0.4%: Raymond Wong
0.3%: Anson Chan
0.3%: Leung Kwok-hung
0.2%: James Tien
0.2%: Joshua Wong
0.2%: Eddie Chu Hoi Dick
1.6%: Anybody but CY Leung
0.3%: No satisfactory person
4.0% Other people
54.2%: Don't know/no opinion
1.3%: Refused to answer

Q15. Some people think that discussion of Hong Kong independence arose because Hongkongers are unfamiliar with China as a country. Other people think that it arose because of the status of One Country Two Systems in Hong Kong in recent years.
23.4%: Agree with the first position
40.4%: Agree with the second position
15.3%: Agree with both positions
13.0%: Disagree with both positions
7.4%: Don't know/no opinion
0.5%: Refused to answer

Q16. Some people think: Hong Kong independence is obviously against the Basic Law, so there is nothing to discuss about it. Therefore, secondary schools should not allow the discussion of Hong Kong independence inside the schools. Other people think: Discussing Hong Kong independence in schools will help increase understanding of Hong Kong independence.
31.3%: Agree with first position
56.9%: Agree with second position
6.8%: Agree with neither position
4.8%: Don't know/no opinion
0.3%: Refused to answer

Q17. Some people think: Hong Kong independence involves national sovereignty. As a matter of principle, the Central Government will not tolerate discussion of Hong Kong independence. We must trust that citizens have the ability to tell right from wrong and therefore the Central Government should allow discussions.
22.8%: Agree with first position
66.7%: Agree with second position
5.6%: Agree with neither position
4.5%: Don't know/no opinion
0.4%: Refused to answer

Q18. Do you think that people who advocate Hong Kong independence should be allowed to become Legislative Councilors?
41.3%: Yes
40.9%: No
17.%: Don't know/no opinion
0.4%: Refused to answer

Internet comments:

- It's all in the wording of the question. Q18 was: "Do you think that people who advocate Hong Kong independence should be allowed to become Legislative Councilors?" and the results were 41.3% Yes and 40.9% No. Rewrite the question as: "Do you think that people who read 'Republic of China' as 'Re-fucking of Shina' in their oaths of office because of their Ap Lei Chau accents should be allowed to become Legislative Councilors?" and what do you think you will get?

- This poll was fielded October 3-10, 2016 before the National People's Congress Standing Committee issued its Interpretation of Basic Law Article 104.

- (EJ Insight) Does popularity matter in Beijing's CE choice?

Many people agree that Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying has a face that is hard to read. You can never tell what he is thinking or feeling. It’s not exactly a poker face because a poker face is impassive, without any expression. But Leung’s face is not always expressionless. He sometimes smiles when he meets the media. His face alternates between a smile and impassiveness, nothing else. There is never anger even when he strongly criticizes something or someone in front of the media. He just looks impassively stern, in contrast to US president-elect Donald Trump, who scowls when he is angry and glares at his opponents.

Unlike Leung, Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah doesn’t wear his face like a mask. It was easy to tell from his face during the September joint press conference with Leung on the Wang Chau housing controversy that he didn’t want to be there. He wore a constant black look. Even when he said: “You always agree with your boss, no question about that”, you could tell he was mocking Leung.

Leung’s smile was particularly broad last week when he talked to the Hong Kong media in Peru right after his 45-minute meeting with President Xi Jinping. He even chuckled when a reporter asked him if he was disappointed that Xi did not raise the issue of him seeking a second term as chief executive. Since his face is impossible to read, it’s hard to guess the reasons behind his confident smile. It could be that he interpreted Xi’s body language as a sign that Beijing will back him for a second term. Or it could be that Xi’s body language was so neutral that he had to mask his dismay with a smile.

Either way, Hong Kong reporters were totally naïve to expect any clear signal from Xi during the Peru meeting when Leung was accompanied by his assistants, including the director of the chief executive’s office Edward Yau Tang-wah. How could anyone seriously think Xi would discuss the chief executive election or express support for Leung in a setting like that? Just because former president Jiang Zemin made a point of having a high-profile handshake with Tung Chee-hwa to signal Beijing’s choice as Hong Kong’s first post-colonial chief executive, it doesn’t mean such handshakes carry similar weight nowadays. That was 20 years ago under very different circumstances and a different leader.

It should now be clear to all those not swayed by speculative headlines that Beijing has yet to decide who it prefers as the next chief executive. People also need to understand that opinion polls on who is the most popular among the likely candidates are pointless. It is pointless, for example, to compare Leung with retired judge Woo Kwok-hing or Tsang with Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee. Such polls only make sense in a one person, one vote election but no sense in an election decided by an Election Committee of 1,200 people, which is heavily influenced by Beijing.

Recent polls have shown Tsang to be the most popular among Hong Kong people, with Leung and the others trailing far behind. But why do over 60 percent of those polled prefer Tsang to all the others? The answer is very simple. People believe he can heal the divisions in society that they believe Leung caused. They believe he can give them the so-called genuine democracy that Leung failed to give them. They believe he will fight for Hong Kong’s interests whereas Leung sucked up to Beijing instead of standing up to it.

Tsang’s 60 percent support comes mostly from the opposition camp and even from localists because he had said he supports localism in the context of local values. Support from this sector could, in a way, be a kiss of death because it is this very sector that Beijing is wary of. Even if Beijing, through the Election Committee, factors in popularity when deciding who to favor as the next leader, Tsang’s high ratings would quickly dissipate once it becomes apparent that he is no more able to deliver the things that Leung failed to deliver.

The opposition camp has made its red line very clear. It wants Beijing to withdraw the so-called White Paper policy document on Hong Kong and the August 31, 2014 political reform framework. It wants true democracy with no screening of chief executive candidates, and it wants self-determination in the context that Beijing controls only defense and foreign affairs.

This red line was barely possible when Leung became chief executive in 2012 and it is virtually impossible now with the rise of the independence movement. The opposition made it more impossible by siding with independence advocates Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang in their fight against being disqualified as legislators.

Let’s suppose the election contest is between Leung and Tsang. It is certain Tsang will be bombarded with questions about whether he will ask Beijing to scrap the August 31 framework and allow genuine democracy, whether he will enact Article 23 national security legislation, and whether he supports self-determination. If he doesn’t give the answers the opposition camp wants to hear, his popularity rating will plummet.

In reality, such a contest will not be about policies but personalities. It doesn’t matter even if Leung is proven as a more capable leader. Leung is loathed but Tsang is liked. That’s all that matters in public opinion polls. The opposition loathes Leung because he faces them down but likes Tsang because he is laid-back and easier to handle. But the question is will Beijing want a chief executive who the opposition embraces as one of its own.

(Bastille Post) December 2, 2016.

Before Secretary of Finance John Tsang traveled to Beijing, rumors about about the Central Government giving the red light to Tsang about the Chief Executive election. But then it was rumored that later that while Beijing does not support Tsang's candidacy, it does not bar him either. Thus, Tsang will resign in mid-December.

I asked about and found out the details of the situation. Earlier, it was said that the Central Government "did not encourage" Tsang but those close to Tsang said that it was a "yellow light" as opposed to the "red light" to stop him. Tsang was all set to go ahead with a "yellow light."

My source said that there is no need to debate whether this was a "red light" or a "yellow light." When Tsang got to Beijing, he met with Wang Guangya, director of the Hong Kong Macau Affairs Office of the State Council. Wang told him that the Central Government does not support his candidacy. Thus, this is a clear NO. There is no room for further interpretation. It is wrong to say that Beijing does not oppose Tsang's candidacy. Beijing opposes it. PERIOD.

(SCMP) November 27, 2016.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying was publicly abused by a teenager using the “f” word during a sharing session with young people on Saturday.

The young man, surnamed Chan, was among hundreds of secondary school and university students invited to the annual Youth Summit organised by the government’s Commission on Youth.

During the one-hour forum, more than a dozen youngsters were given the chance to ask Leung questions. When Chan was picked by the moderator, he took the opportunity to accuse Leung’s administration of cracking down on young people’s participation in social movements such as the Occupy demonstrations and protests against cross-border parallel traders.

“During the Occupy Central movement, how come the government used tear gas on a group of bare-handed teenagers?” he said. Chan said such a move went against calls by the government for teenagers to participate more in social affairs.

At the end of his question section, Chan suddenly became emotional. “I just can’t resist any more, I am so sorry ...” he said, before shouting the “f” word at the chief executive.

Leung did not directly respond to the swearing, but said cases of police intervention during protests in Hong Kong were much fewer than in other countries. “The situation should not be over-generalised. Hong Kong police have been very restrained,” Leung said. He said he encouraged the city’s young people to use any means to express their ideas – as long as it was legal.

However, when asked by a female student whether he would consider enabling the comments section on his Facebook page to offer a platform for youngsters to voice their views, Leung said he would like to do so “if people could express their opinions rationally”. “Even if they are against me or the SAR government, there is absolutely no problem,” he said.

But the top official said the activities of people on Facebook tended to be “too simple” and therefore had little value. “Even a post of me visiting elderly homes was given thousands of angry faces … I don’t think these kinds of activities have much reference value,” he said.

(Oriental Daily with video) November 27, 2016.

During the Q&A session, a man said that it is a good thing for young people to participate in the Umbrella Movement, but the government suppressed them. The authorities fired tear gas at the demonstrators, and a demonstrator was accused of using her breast to attack the police. The man said: "Fuck your mother" to express his discontent. The workers asked the man to leave. The man left on his own. Leung responded that there are many demonstrations in Hong Kong, but very few of them are stopped by the government.

A male middle-school student said that young people oppose the government because they don't trust the government. He said that legislators don't know how to do screen captures on computers, they don't know how to do live broadcasts and they don't play computer games. However, legislators can vote to pass Internet Article 23!"

A female student said that Leung was deleting comments on his Facebook. She demanded that Leung open up comments again. Leung said that he finds it incomprehensible that photos on his Facebook of a visit to a senior citizen centre should draw several thousand angry faces. Leung said that smooth communication must be held in a civilized and rational manner.

Video transcript: Chan: "And then I wanted to say ... how come the government is not supporting and caring about, but is suppressing instead? Finally I want to say ... I know that I am out of time ... I really cannot hold it back ... I really sorry ... I fuck your mother!"

(TVB) November 27, 2016.

Chan: "They are oppressing young people, and not caring and supporting. They are oppressing young people. They are not oppressing. For example, like the Umbrella Revolution, a group of unarmed young people were tear-gassed. Finally I really cannot hold back ... I am really sorry ... I fuck your mother!"

Leung: "Hong Kong has a lot of demonstration and marches to express opinions, whether they are outdoors or indoors like our meeting today. It is rare for the government to take the so-called suppression action for the police to control the situation. We absolutely should not be biased about this. The Hong Kong police and the government realizes that traffic is really tight in such a constricted area. The police have been very restrained. I hope that Yu-hin (the speaker) knows this."

Internet comments:

- Whenever something likes this happens to a pro-establishment/pro-China person, the Yellow Ribbon pundits always say that the victim needs to seriously reflect on his failures which led to such verbal/physical attacks.

Whenever something like this happens to a pro-'democracy' person, the Yellow Ribbon pundits cry "White Terror!" and say that the police should be called in to the arrest the perpetrator (see, for example, the Shoe Throwing Incident) in order to protect our freedom of speech.

- Mr. Chan asked: “During the Occupy Central movement, how come the government used tear gas on a group of bare-handed teenagers?” Indeed, the whole world saw how the government used tear gas on a group of bare-handed teenagers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfUTqQmF_vU. To date, the government has not been able to provide a reasonable explanation.

Mr. Chan said that the authorities fired tear gas and then accused one demonstrator of using her breast to attack a policeman. This was the case of Ng Lai-ying.

- Actually this is a CHAN SAID LEUNG SAID kind of thing here. We cannot resolve who is right or wrong. We need a neutral referee. Hey, Chris Patten is in town? Let's ask him whether the police can use tear gas against unarmed citizens. [Hint: A Google search for "tear+gas+police" yielded 216,000 results.]

- (BBC) May 20, 1965. This is the date when the British police were issued with tear gas. "Tear gas is widely accepted by police forces around the world as a means of controlling civilian crowds."

We can't wait to hear Chris Patten say otherwise.

- There is no need to respect CY Leung because he doesn't respect the people of Hong Kong.

- I completely agree that if you don't respect others, others should not respect you either. So when the Yellow Ribbons paralyzed Admiralty and Mong Kok, did they respect the people of Hong Kong? When 90% of the people of Hong Kong want them to go away, did they respect this popular will?

- If the Yellow Ribbons want "genuine universal suffrage" and the National People's Congress Standing Committee is standing in the way with the August 31st resolution, then take it up with the NPCSC -- go to Beijing and occupy the Great Hall of the People in Tiananmen Square. Why occupy Mong Kok instead? This is displaced anger -- you can't beat the big bully at school, so you beat up a smaller kid instead because you can.

- CY Leung doesn't respect the people of Hong Kong? What did he do? Does he say "Fuck your mother" to everyone that he comes across? Now that would be offensive!

- It is not that you don't want to listen to what young people want to say. It is just that the stream-of-consciousness rant is incoherent. What was this Chan person trying to say?

- Any Joe can use curse words. But to what purpose? What was this about?

- Any Joe can use curse words. But not all Joe's slur when they speak. So this Joe is especially hard to understand.

- When this generation thinks that something is right or wrong, there can be no IF's, BUT's or OR's. They don't know, they don't want to know and they don't care. They just want to have it their way (see Burger King). What is the point of communication if everything is an ULTIMATUM of MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY? If they are incapable of listening, then why should anyone bother to talk to them?

- Mr. Chan probably felt very good after saying "I fuck your mother" to CY Leung. Yes, it was the perfect performance. And then what? If he wants to, he will probably have a good political career as a Legislative Councilor.

- At least this case proves that freedom of expression is alive and well in Hong Kong. But to what purpose? Why is it a good thing?

- It is people like these who elected Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. What did you expect?

- Why is there so much unhappiness among young people here in Hong Kong? Here is the standard litany of reasons:

- I want to travel overseas. In October, I went to Japan. In November, I went to Australia. In December, I want to go to Maldives. But I don't have the money and I don't have any vacation time left. I am so depressed. The government should institute mandatory paid vacations for citizens.

- I am single and I want my own apartment. Why is the waiting list for single-person public housing units so long? Why do they give priority to large homeless families? I want it now! I don't want to wait!

- I am still using an iPhone 6S. Everybody else has an iPhone 7 already. I feel so out of it! Why doesn't the government have a mobile phone purchase program for young people?

- I only have two credit cards. Everybody that I know has at least 6. Why aren't the banks giving me more credit cards? The banks should be made to give credit cards to me.

- Five years after I graduated from university, I still haven't been able to pay any part of my student loan. The government must forgive all outstanding student loans because this is clearly not good for my mental health.

- Everybody I know says that you can get a girl to climb into bed on the first date. Why haven't I been able to do that? I feel miserable. Is there something really wrong with me?

- I am twenty-nine years old. I own nothing significant -- no apartment, no car, no money, no jewelry, no pets. But I do own 89 pairs of special edition athletic shoes at an average purchase price of HK$ 3,000 per pair. The problem is that the most exclusive editions are reserved only for sale in America, Europe and Japan, and our government refuses to do anything about it.

(SCMP) July 7, 2015.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying today dismissed rumours one of his key ministers had got the nod from Beijing to be Hong Kong’s next leader after President Xi Jinping offered an eyebrow-raising handshake to the financial secretary at a key international meeting last month.

Speculation that finance chief John Tsang Chun-wah could be a dark horse for the 2017 chief executive election mounted after Xi approached and wordlessly shook hands with him at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank meeting in Beijing last month, attended by 57 founding member states.

Last month, Tsang laughed off speculation that he was tipped to be the city’s next leader. “The president [Xi] also shook hands with a lot of other people, but those moments were not captured by the television cameras,” Tsang replied when asked if he saw any political signal from Xi’s gesture. But he sidestepped a question about whether he was interested in the top job. Instead, Tsang asked the reporter who posed the question: “Have you asked other people [the same question]?”

(Hong Kong Free Press) September 7, 2016.

Financial Secretary John Tsang has told local media not to look too deeply into his handshake with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Hangzhou. “I think this is a very normal thing,” he said. “I think meeting each other, shaking hands, and making conversation is very normal.” He had previously shaken hands with the Chinese leader last June in Beijing, leading to speculation that Beijing favoured him as the next Chief Executive of Hong Kong. “I thanked the president for giving us the chance, inviting us to participate in this conference, and we did not talk about anything else,” said Tsang. He refuted questions over whether they had spoken about the position of Chief Executive.

The speculation stems from historical moments dating back to 1996. Tung Chee-hwa won a handshake from then Chinese president Jiang Zemin while campaigning for Chief Executive elections in January 1996. Tung successfully became the city’s first leader in 1997. After Tung stepped down in 2005, former chief executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen attended a financial forum in Beijing where former president Hu Jintao offered a six-second long handshake.

(SCMP) November 22, 2016.

President Xi Jinping has for the first time sent a “forceful” message to Hong Kong against independence advocacy, urging Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to ensure stability and safeguard national unity.

After their 45-minute meeting on the sidelines on the Apec summit in the Peruvian capital, Leung said on Monday that they did not discuss his possible re-election bid when Hong Kong chooses its leader next March.

Instead, he said Xi was “very concerned” about Hong Kong, but also “very supportive of” the Leung administration’s handling of the row over two pro-independence lawmakers who were disqualified for insulting China while taking their oaths.

“[Xi] fully acknowledged my work and the [government’s] work ... including the recent handling of the Legco oath-taking [controversy],” Leung said.

“Very simply put – and very forcefully – the president said there is no room whatsoever for Hong Kong independence under the ‘one country, two systems’ arrangement.”

Professor Lau Siu-kai, a leading Beijing adviser on Hong Kong affairs, said the central government wanted to avoid any room for speculation about its preference for the next chief executive at this critical timing.

“What is noteworthy is that unlike on similar occasions in the past, Xi didn’t give positive comments on Leung’s work before the cameras, and those remarks were only carried in the Xinhua report released subsequently,” Lau said.

China’s official Xinhua news agency reported that, while fully acknowledging the work of Leung and his government, the president told Leung to lead his team “to continue to implement policies in a comprehensive manner, to build broad social consensus, to focus on boosting economic development and improving the people’s well-being, to safeguard national unity, and to maintain social and political stability”.

Asked if he felt let down that Xi had no made comment on his possible aspirations for a second term as chief executive, Leung replied: “I had no plan to raise any of my personal matters with the president in this meeting today, nor did I expect him to say anything about me standing for re-election or not.”

During the photo opportunity at the start of their meeting in Lima at the hotel where he was staying, the president smiled as he briefly shook hands with Leung.

“It took 20 to 30 hours to fly here, right? It took a total of 27 hours,” Xi said, engaging in small talk with Leung in front of the cameras as the Hong Kong leader compared the difference in travelling time to Lima between Beijing and Hong Kong.

Also watched was the seating arrangement, after Leung’s duty visit to Beijing last year, when Xi sat at the far end of the table with the chief executive on the side to signal the president’s superior status as the head of state. This time the pair sat side by side.

(The Standard) November 21, 2016.

Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying is set to meet President Xi Jinping at 7am today (HK time) during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Peru. Leung is perceived by many to be seeking reelection in March, though if he does he will likely face challenges from several candidates, including retired judge Woo Kwok-hing.

Leung greeted Xi at the airport when the president arrived in Lima on Saturday morning and shook hands with him for 3.5 seconds as they talked and smiled. It was their first handshake since Leung's duty visit to Beijing in December.

Some commentators said the meeting should be closely observed for signals on whether Xi will give his blessing to Leung for a second term in office, although Leung earlier said they will focus on the APEC summit rather than Hong Kong affairs.

There was similar speculation when Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun- wah shook hands with Xi this year and last year. After Tsang shook hands with Xi in the inauguration of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in Beijing in June, Leung also greeted Xi at the airport when they attended the APEC meeting in the Philippines.

(Taipei Times) November 22, 2016.

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) yesterday criticized claims that President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) APEC envoy and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had “met” at the APEC leaders’ summit in Lima, Peru, although it took credit for what it called a “chance encounter.”

KMT Culture and Communications Committee deputy director Hu Wen-chi (胡文琦) told a morning news conference in Taipei that People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong’s (宋楚瑜) 10-minute conversation with Xi on Saturday was only a chance encounter, nothing like the “formal meetings” that former vice presidents Lien Chan (連戰) and Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) held with Chinese leaders when they attended previous APEC summits as special envoys of the president.

The government should refrain from boasting about the encounter, Hu said.

The lack of a formal meeting between Soong and Xi was due to Tsai’s refusal to acknowledge the so-called “1992 consensus,” a tacit understanding between Beijing and the KMT that both sides of the Taiwan Strait acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.

Given that Beijing denied Soong an opportunity to be photographed with Xi and has categorized the pair’s talk as “simple, natural greeting exchanges” rather than a “Soong-Xi meeting,” the PFP founder should not try to “pass off fish eyes for pearls” (魚目混珠), Hu said, using a Chinese idiom meaning to present a fake as something real.

Video:

Formosa English News: Soong and Xi have brief conversation before APEC meeting

Formosa English News: Taiwan's envoy to the APEC leaders' summit in Peru holds meeting with Chinese leader

Formosa English News: Details of APEC envoy James Soong’s encounter with Xi Jinping at APEC summit remain murky

Internet videos:

- Closing ceremony group photo; Peru president Pedro Pablo Kuczynski is center of front row, Xi Jinping to his immediate right and Leung Chun-ying to his immediate left. Putin and Obama are in the backrow.

But before you attach any significance to the proximity and importance of Xi-Leung, please remember that the arrangement is based upon alphabetical order: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua-New Guinea, Peru, The Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, United States and Vietnam. As long as APEC has the same 21 Member Economies, China will be the right of the host and Hong Kong to the left of the host in the family photo. In 2008, Hu Jintao was to the right and Donald Tsang to the left. So please calm down!

- (Hong Kong Free Press) November 2, 2016.

Financial Secretary John Tsang has pushed back against rumours that Beijing told him not to run for chief executive. The rumour, written by an anonymous commentator, was first published in pro-Beijing newspaper Sing Tao on Tuesday. Other pro-Beijing newspapers followed suit, saying that after Tsang informed Beijing of his intention to run for Hong Kong’s top job, he received a negative reply. Tsang clarified on Tuesday: “No one has discouraged me [from running].” However, he did not deny or admit to the speculation that he wrote to Beijing indicating his intention to resign and join the race for chief executive.

Veteran commentator Johnny Lau Yui-siu told Apple Daily that typically Beijing would not tell a particular contender not to run even if it did not want that person to participate. “If that person becomes bitter and publicises [Beijing’s message], wouldn’t Beijing give the impression that it is directly meddling in Hong Kong’s elections?” Lau said.

- (Bastille Post) November 26, 2016.

Over the past couple of days, attention has been drawn once again to John Tsang. It is said that his campaign team is in place, with a former senior government official to serve as the campaign manager.

But once again we are hearing footsteps but somehow nobody actually appears. The key here is the attitude of Beijing. The rumor was that John Tsang had inquired Beijing through a friend in the banking sector. Beijing gave a yellow light, which is neither a red light to oppose or a green light to support. Instead, the yellow light means that Beijing does not encourage John Tsang to enter the race. It is said that John Tsang will go ahead in the presence of yellow light.

This weekend, John Tsang will travel to Beijing to meet with Wang Guangya, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. It is said that he wanted to inform the Central Government of his intention to resign and enter the election.

According to an informed source, if John Tsang goes to see Wang Guangya, he will be getting the red light instead of a green or yellow light. It is up to John Tsang to decide what to do in the presence of the red light.

This informed source said that no Chief Executive can function without the support of the Central Government. A smart person will know not to proceed against the red light.

- (Kinliu) November 26, 2016.

When John Tsang got a 2.5 second handshake with Xi Jinping, all the pundits proclaimed Tsang to be the next Chief Executive. But now Xi Jinping has met with CY Leung for 45 minutes behind closed doors. All of a sudden, sour grapes are overflowing in the Yellow Ribbon media. If 2.5 seconds makes for an anointment, then what is 45 minutes?

Of course, they can always spin the opposite way -- Xi Jinping spent 45 minutes haranguing CY Leung behind closed doors for failing to do his job! And when CY Leung came out of the meeting seeming to be gloating, it must be because his skin is as thick as a dinosaur's!

(Foreign Correspondents' Club @ YouTube) Christopher Patten - The World After Trump and Brexit. November 25, 2016.

(SCMP) November 25, 2016.

Hong Kong’s last governor has torn into pro-independence activists, saying it would be a tragedy if the “moral high ground” achieved by student leaders in the 2014 Occupy protests was lost because of pro-independence antics.

Chris Patten, who is in the city for a short visit, accused such activists of “diluting support” for democracy in Hong Kong.

However, he also lamented the “slow progress” of democracy since the 1997 handover and suggested the central government should have exercised restraint when considering an interpretation of the Basic Law.

“I still have great admiration for those who campaign for democracy, but not for those whose campaign dilutes support for democracy and makes a mockery of a serious political argument,” he said.

He was speaking amid the ongoing oath-taking saga in the city. On October 12 localist duo Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching pledged allegiance to a “Hong Kong nation” and insulted China at a swearing-in ceremony at the Legislative Council. Patten said taking an oath was a serious matter and “not something of a lark”. “In Britain, if you don’t take an oath, you cannot even join a club,” he added.

“It would be dishonest, dishonourable and reckless of somebody like me, to pretend that the case for democracy should be mixed up with an argument about the independence of Hong Kong – something which is not going to happen, something which dilutes support for democracy, and something which has led to all sorts of antics which should not take place in a mature society aiming to be a full democracy.”

In a reference to the Occupy protests, Patten said: “Two years ago, many brave young people in Hong Kong established moral high ground about democracy in governance, and I think it would be a tragedy if that high ground was lost because of a few antics.” Patten also said it would be a “mistake to confuse the way people know the relationship” between their citizenship, freedoms and prosperity “with headline-grabbing remarks about independence”.

Asked what he had to say to young people who supported independence, he replied: “I would far prefer it if Chinese officials were having to discuss an answerable case for greater democracy in Hong Kong, rather than talking about the ... very unwise case of arguing for independence.”

(Financial Times) November 26, 2016.

Lord Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, has lambasted two lawmakers who were recently disqualified for pledging allegiance to the “Hong Kong nation”, arguing that the burgeoning independence movement in the Chinese territory is “completely counter-productive”.

Lord Patten, who is in Hong Kong to give a number of public lectures, told the Financial Times on Friday that taking an oath was a “serious matter” and Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching, who were disqualified by a Hong Kong court earlier this month, were wrong to turn it into “a sort of student game”.

More broadly, Lord Patten, who is now chancellor of the University of Oxford, attacked the growing push for independence and self-determination, supporters of which won around 20 per cent of the vote in the legislative council election in September.

“The danger is that they dissipate the enormously strong moral position that they established in 2014 by confusing the argument for a better form of government with the completely counter-productive demands for independence which are bound to provoke a backlash from China,” he said.

He added: “My strong, strong advice is that they should get back to talking about governance and democracy and eschew all this stuff about independence … That is not going to happen and people should recognise the dangers of pretending that it might.”

(Hong Kong Free Press) November 25, 2016.

Chris Patten, the last colonial governor of Hong Kong, has said that the city will not win independence from China and that such a campaign dilutes support for democracy.

“I have great admiration for those who campaign for democracy, but not those whose campaign dilutes support for democracy and makes a mockery of a serious political argument,” he said.

Patten appeared at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club on Friday to give a speech on the world after Brexit and election of Donald Trump, but he soon shifted to Hong Kong matters. Patten, who left his leadership post in Hong Kong in 1997, said it was a “bit surprising” that Hong Kong’s democratic progress had not sped up. “It was supposed to take place at a steady rate, but the steady rate seems to be pretty slow.”

He said he supports “sensible” democratic movements in Hong Kong, giving special mention to the Occupy protests of 2014 as a “peaceful and mature campaign for democracy.”

But he referred to his knowledge of the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed in 1984, noting that it included a paragraph on China’s national unity and territorial integrity.

“It would be dishonest, dishonourable and reckless of somebody like me to pretend that the case for democracy should be mixed up with an argument about the independence of Hong Kong – something which is not going to happen, something which dilutes support for democracy and something which has led to all sorts of antics which should not take place in a mature society aiming to be a full democracy,” he said.

“I think two years ago many brave young people in Hong Kong established moral high ground about democracy in governance and I think it would be a tragedy if that high ground was lost because of the antics about so-called independence for Hong Kong.”

Patten was firm, saying that pledging allegiance “is a serious business.” “Taking oath isn’t something of a lark,” he said. “You won’t take an oath, you can’t join the club.” Patten is now the chancellor of the Oxford University. He said he took oaths several times as the governor of Hong Kong, as a member of Britain’s parliament, and a member of the House of Lords, among others.

He cited the example of the Sinn Féin party, who would not pledge allegiance to the Queen. They were therefore unable to take their place in parliament. “Simple as that,” said Patten. “And I would guess there are legislatures all over the world which have similar requirements,” he added.

Concluding his speech, he joked that he was “sorry to sound like a headmaster.”

(EJ Insight) Hong Kong’s independence trap. By Chris Patten. December 8, 2016.

Nearly 40 years ago, when I visited Moscow for the first time, my initial reaction was surprise.

The hotels and restaurants were so poorly run that it seemed shocking that the military could be run competently enough to pose a genuine threat to the Soviet Union’s adversaries. Yet we in the West feared the Red Army – and with good reason.

Hong Kong, my favorite city, sends the opposite message.

Its restaurants are run with precision, and it boasts some of the world’s best hotels.

Surely any city that can look after visitors so superbly should have nothing to worry about, except, perhaps, how best to use the proceeds of its competence and entrepreneurial genius.

But, again, things may not be quite what they seem.

Hong Kong’s success partly reflects a fundamental moderation within the culture, a competency and rationality that enables the city – an autonomous Chinese territory – to thrive in a complex context.

But, when I visited Hong Kong last month – my first visit since the momentous but abortive democracy demonstrations of 2014 – people seemed more nervous than they had in some time.

The reason is that a fledgling independence movement is shaking things up in Hong Kong.

It started with characteristically moderate calls for greater democracy.

But menacing noises from China, together with the Hong Kong government’s failure to attempt a sensible dialogue with its critics about governance concerns or economic challenges, have driven many democracy activists to extremism.

This is unwise.

The reality is that Hong Kong is not an incipient nation-state, and it will not become one. China would oppose this idea to the bitter end. It is not a fight Hong Kong would win.

Instead, Hong Kong is a Chinese city with a strong sense of identity as a free, plural, decent, and open society under the rule of law.

This is what democracy activists should be discussing. This is where they are on sound footing and can advance positive goals.

As soon as those activists begin demanding independence, however, they risk splintering their support and losing the moral high ground that they gained with their campaign in 2014.

This plays into the hands of the Chinese Communist Party and its stooges in Hong Kong.

As if demanding independence were not damaging enough to the pro-democracy cause, some independence campaigners are using brash tactics that are guaranteed to backfire.

Most consequential, two young pro-independence campaigners who were elected to the Legislative Council – Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Leung – chose to make a mockery of their oath of office last September.

Such oaths are common for legislators. In the United Kingdom, for example, you cannot assume your role as an elected representative without taking one.

But Yau and Leung wanted to win publicity for their cause. So they altered the words of the oath; displayed a banner stating that “Hong Kong is not China”; and referred to China using what many consider a slur.

Yau and Leung immediately incurred the wrath of China’s central government.

Although the Hong Kong courts surely could have dealt with the issue themselves – under the “one country, two systems” framework, Hong Kong is assured an independent court system, in addition to the right to elect its own legislature – an enraged China intervened.

Restraint is not, after all, a Leninist virtue.

In an extraordinary move, China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee stepped in to “clarify” Article 104 of the Basic Law, declaring that all oaths taken by office-holders must be “solemn, accurate, complete, and sincere”.

Yau and Leung were barred from taking their seats in the Legislative Council.

To most Hong Kong lawyers, the display of political authority did not represent simply a reinterpretation of old rules, but a move toward making new ones.

And, in fact, Hong Kong’s government is now launching legal challenges against four more legislators – all relatively moderate pro-democracy activists – arguing that their oaths of office were also invalid.

In short, Hong Kong’s democracy may now be more constrained than it was before.

It is depressing to see Hong Kong once more bereft of inclusive leadership and roiled by political grandstanding.

If this situation persists, China’s moves to assert more authority in Hong Kong could well become even more brazen.

That is why it is so important for the people of Hong Kong to ensure that their vision is not clouded by extremism, and to stand up to protect the virtues that comprise their unique identity.

Fortunately, there are many in Hong Kong doing just that.

The legal profession, in particular, continues to show brave leadership in upholding the rule of law, a target of regular criticism by Communist Party officials who either do not understand what it means or know all too well.

Similarly, civil-society organizations such as the Project Citizens Foundation are committed to educating the public on Hong Kong’s rules and rights.

Thanks partly to their efforts, the public tends to be knowledgeable and vigilant about encroachment on Hong Kong’s freedoms, such as the recent abduction of five book publishers by mainland agents.

These are anxious times for Hong Kong. But the problem is not so entrenched that it could not be solved by a bold attempt to forge a consensus between the government and those whom it is supposed to serve.

With enough political will – and level heads – Hong Kong can return to a path leading toward a freer, more open democracy.

(BBC) Chris Patten: UK risks 'selling its honour' on Hong Kong. By Danny Vincent. January 25, 2017.

The former governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, says the UK risks not meeting its promises to the territory and "selling its honour" in an attempt to reach trade deals with China.

Speaking to BBC Newsnight, Lord Patten said the UK had let down "a generation" of democracy activists. It is 20 years since Hong Kong was returned to China after more than a century of British rule. The UK government says it takes its commitments to Hong Kong seriously.

Anson Chan, former Hong Kong chief secretary - who worked as Lord Patten's deputy - also expressed deep concern about China's behaviour towards Hong Kong. Citing the example of the alleged kidnapping by China of five booksellers and other rights abuses, she told BBC Newsnight that the "one country, two systems" form of rule itself is under threat. "Unfortunately the rest of the world - particularly Great Britain - would rather pretend not to see what is going on," she said. "If they continue to ignore this steady erosion, by the time they wake up to the fact that 'one country, two systems' exists only in name, it will be too late."

In the 1980s the Chinese and British leadership agreed that Hong Kong would be guaranteed certain freedoms not enjoyed in the rest of China - freedom of press, freedom of assembly and a partially-elected law-making council.
This principle, known as "one China, two systems", was a part of the Sino-British joint declaration - an international agreement guaranteeing Hong Kong those freedoms after the handover.

Lord Patten said the UK government has not "manifestly stood up for Hong Kong". "I wonder what has happened to our sense of honour and our sense of responsibility - particularly in Britain. It's above all a British question," he said. We signed the joint declaration with China. It's a treaty at the UN. It's supposed to commit us to standing up for Hong Kong's rights until 2047. And you don't get much sense of the British government actually standing over those promises and obligations and I think that's a great pity."

Lord Patten said the UK risks putting its desire to do trade with China, over its commitment to Hong Kong. "It's all for derisory, ludicrous reasons," he said. "The argument that the only way you can do trade with China is by kowtowing to China on political issues is drivel - it's complete nonsense. I worry about how people are prepared to sell our honour for alleged trade deals which never actually happen. I think that that would be calamitous. And what do we represent to the world if that's what happens?"

In 2015, five publishers selling critical articles about the Chinese leadership disappeared, only to reappear in detention in the mainland. One bookseller was thought to have been abducted while in Hong Kong. Four of the publishers - including a British passport-holder - were eventually returned to Hong Kong. One Swedish national remains in Chinese detention.

Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Hong Kong in 2014 in what came to be known as the "Umbrella Protests". The protests lasted several weeks, and captured the world's attention, but failed to achieve any concessions from Beijing. " I feel very strongly that we let down the parents of this generation of democracy activists. I think it would be a tragedy if we let down these kids as well," Lord Patten said.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: "The UK takes our longstanding commitment under the Sino-British Joint Declaration very seriously. We believe that 'one country, two systems' continues to be the best arrangement for Hong Kong's long term stability and prosperity, as it has been for nearly 20 years. We hope and expect that 'One Country Two Systems' will be respected and successful long into the future." The spokesperson added: "We regularly discuss the importance of respect for 'one Country, two Systems' and Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy with the Chinese Government. The Foreign Secretary made this clear to his Chinese counterpart when they met in London in December."

(SCMP) Hong Kong localists are the true culprits breaching the Joint Declaration. By Alex Lo. January 30, 2017.

Chris Patten, speaking to the BBC, has blasted the British government for selling out Hong Kong. It’s not the first time the last governor has rounded on his government for kowtowing to the mainland in its pursuit of trade and business interests to the exclusion of democracy and civil rights in Hong Kong. That’s also a charge that has been made repeatedly in the past 20 years by such local democrats as Anson Chan Fang On-sang and Martin Lee Chu-ming.

You say honour; I say meddling. It’s hard to see how their oft-repeated criticisms hold water. The time for the British to do the honourable thing is long gone. They should have granted full citizenship to Hong Kong people before the transfer of sovereignty in 1997. Having failed that, the best thing they could do is to leave us Chinese alone to work it out among ourselves.

What can Britain do anyway? What leverage does it have? When the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed in 1984, British GDP was a third bigger than that of China. Today, China’s GDP is almost four-and-a-half times Britain’s. Meanwhile, Hong Kong’s GDP has shrunk from 16 per cent of the mainland’s in 1997 to less than 3 per cent today.

Patten is honest enough never to have claimed that China has violated the Joint Declaration – at least to my knowledge. People like Lee, Chan and other pan-democrats have repeated this highly contested judgment as if it were a fact. Ironically, I find comedian Russell Brand’s assessment of Hong Kong’s lack of democracy with Britain’s lack of the same far more insightful than most mainstream British news reports. Look it up on YouTube.

The Joint Declaration makes no mention of universal suffrage or democracy; you need the Basic Law for that. The closest it gets to that is “on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally” for choosing the chief executive. The Basic Law, alas, is a matter solely between Hong Kong and the mainland.

The Joint Declaration also cites “the United Kingdom and other countries, whose economic interests in Hong Kong will be given due regard”. It explicitly spells out “national unity and territorial integrity” for China. So yes, the Joint Declaration has been breached – by localists who want independence and pan-democrats who encourage them.

(SCMP) Keep ‘one country’ intact to enjoy the benefits of ‘two systems’. By Alex Lo. April 30, 2017.

Talk about scrapping the “one country, two systems” formula may sound a bit extreme. But it’s no worse than openly advocating independence for Hong Kong.

With few exceptions, virtually all the mainstream pan-democrats and localists have, in recent years, failed to speak out against those agitating for secession. Instead, many are aiding and abetting the secessionists or making up excuses for them. 

When you deliberately wave a red flag in front of a raging bull, you should not complain if you get crushed. Even a child knows independence is the red line for the central government. 

The pan-democrats, having helped make it a viable political movement, have done Hong Kong and its people a great disservice. 

The worst epithets have been thrown at Wang Zhenmin, the legal chief of the central government’s liaison office, who sounded the warning about “one country, two systems” at the weekend. 

Well, you can shoot the messenger, but he is merely stating the obvious. 

“If the ‘two systems’ part ... is severely distorted or even [becomes a tool] to confront and damage ‘one country’, then the reasons and conditions for the ‘two systems’ to exist would be lost,” Wang said. “If it fails, the country will only lose face, but Hong Kong will lose everything.”

A pact like the “one country, two systems” principle is not something that is set in stone. Even the Bible or the Koran has to be read in the context of the 21st century. There needs to be constant adjustments in the behaviour and understanding on both sides to march with rapidly changing times and conditions. 

The innovative political principle was conceived at a time when Hong Kong played a much larger role in the nation’s economic rise. The positions of strength have been fundamentally reversed in the past two decades since the city’s return to Chinese sovereignty. 

Like it or not, Hong Kong must stand with the rest of China or it will be nothing. 

Unfortunately, many idealistic and self-righteous people refuse to accept this fundamental reality. They have what you may call their own alternative reality, something they think they can achieve just because they wish it.

It’s not too late for the pan-dems to do the right thing. Declare your commitment to “one country” as much as to “two systems”. Oppose anyone who agitates for independence or secession. 

Remember: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

Internet comments:

- Historical Laws of Hong Kong Online, (Oaths and Declarations Ordinance) Revised Edition 1986.

19. A member of the Legislative Council shall, as soon as possible after his appointment, or in the case of an elected member after the commencement of his term of office as an elected member, take the Oath of Allegiance or the Legislative Council Oath, which shall be tendered by the Governor, or other member presiding. (Amended, 23 of 1985, s. 3)

Part I [ss. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20] Oath of Allegiance

I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law. So help me God.

OR

PART IVA [ss. 16, 19.] Legislative Council Oath

I, swear that I will uphold the law of Hong Kong, and that I will conscientiously and truly serve the people of Hong Kong as a member of the Legislative Council. So help me God.

Well, at least the Legislative Councilors of the colonial era had a choice between two forms of oath. This means that they don't have to swear allegiance to the Queen and her heirs. If this is the case, why can't Hong Kong today have two forms of oath as well?

- Does the Mayor of Newcastle have a choice of either pledging allegiance to Her Majesty or the people of Newcastle?

The position of the British colony with respect to the Queen of England is not the same as the position of the English city of Newcastle with respect to the Queen of England. There is no 99-year-old lease of the Newcastle suburbs granted by their sovereign nation of Germany to the United Kingdom.

- (SCMP) February 25, 2017.

The Chinese foreign ministry has dismissed the findings of a British report that pointed to the Legislative Council elections saga and the oath-taking row as factors that have damaged people’s confidence in the “one country, two systems” principle.

Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang urged the British government to stop publishing such reports and intruding into Hong Kong’s affairs. “Hong Kong affairs are China’s internal affairs,” Geng said. “Foreign countries have no right to interfere.” Geng added that the central government had upheld the principles of “one country, two systems”.

While noting that the policy continued to function well in the vast majority of areas, the British government urged central and local authorities, as well as all elected politicians, to take steps to restore domestic and international confidence.

“The period under review in this report nevertheless saw a number of developments which caused concern in Hong Kong and internationally with respect to the implementation of ‘one country, two systems’,” British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson wrote in the foreword to the report.

The biannual study on the former British colony covered the later half of 2016 and was released on Friday and presented to the British parliament.

Johnson further wrote: “These include the events surrounding the Legislative Council elections and the subsequent oath-taking by elected legislators; and continuing concerns about the exercise of rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Joint Declaration, including freedom of expression and the freedom of the press.”

The declaration set out the terms of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty on July 1, 1997. Johnson was referring to the months-long oath controversy triggered by localist lawmakers-elect Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching last year. The court disqualified the Youngspiration pair after the government filed a legal bid against the duo’s anti-Beijing antics at a Legco swearing-in ceremony in October. But before the ruling, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee had stepped in to interpret the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution. Prior to the saga, six localist candidates were also barred from running in the Legco elections because of questions over their recognition of Hong Kong as an inalienable part of China.

“The British government specifically raised its concerns about the interpretation, both publicly and privately,” Johnson wrote. “We did not question the right of the Standing Committee to issue this interpretation, but were concerned about the timing of its release before the conclusion of related judicial proceedings in the Hong Kong courts.”

The report dismissed the notion of Hong Kong independence as an option for the city, noting local discussion of the topic and stressing that the “one country, two systems” arrangement provided by the Joint Declaration and Basic Law was the best long-term system.

In its previous report, the British government expressed concerns over the disappearance of five Hong Kong booksellers who later resurfaced under the custody of mainland authorities. It said it continued to have concerns about the incident and claimed it aired them with mainland and Hong Kong authorities during the reporting period.

- From the British report: "There was also continued debate about Hong Kong’s constitutional future, particularly in light of the election of localist politicians to the Legislative Council, and discussion in the media about advocates of independence. The UK Government’s position on this issue is clear. We do not see independence as an option for Hong Kong. It is our clear view that the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ arrangements provided for by the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law provide the best system for Hong Kong’s long-term future."

- (SCMP) Boris Johnson should understand sanctity of oaths. By Alex Lo. February 27, 2017.

Why is Boris Johnson worried about the Legislative Council oath saga from last year? Writing in a British government report on Hong Kong, the foreign secretary has expressed concern about the Legco row that saw localist lawmakers-elect Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching being disqualified from taking their seats.

As a Tory, Johnson should have understood perfectly well why they were kicked out of Legco – for refusing to swear according to the legal oath of office, for declaring Hong Kong’s independence, and for insulting the Chinese nation. They went on to disrupt Legco meetings for three weeks.

British members of parliament are required to swear or affirm allegiance to the monarch and her heirs and successors. Otherwise, they can’t take their seats or use any parliamentary facilities.

At least Legco members-elect are not required to declare loyalty to the president of China, the central government or even the Chinese nation; they only need to bear allegiance to the Basic Law – the city’s mini-constitution – and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Those two Youngspiration miscreants and several others refused to meet even this minimal requirement of oath.

Meanwhile, Johnson’s report casts doubt on an interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on the validity of the Legco oath. The authority and legitimacy of the Standing Committee to interpret the Basic Law is unrivalled and unquestioned, even by the Court of Final Appeal … even by the British government. In fact, Johnson’s report itself admits as much. “We did not question the right of the Standing Committee to issue this interpretation, but were concerned about the timing of its release before the conclusion of judicial proceedings,” he wrote.

But that’s a moot point. In the Court of First Instance judgment that disqualified the pair, the judge explicitly said it was made without the need to refer to the Standing Committee’s interpretation. That judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Unlike the Chinese foreign ministry, I think the Brits do have a legitimate interest in the welfare of Hong Kong people. But instead of expressing misguided concerns, Johnson and his British colleagues should acknowledge that authorities on both sides of the border were upholding the principle of “one country, two systems” by fighting and rejecting those lawmakers-elect who fully intended to breach the Basic Law and violate the spirit of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

- (Hong Kong National Party)

The response of our Party to media inquiries about the speech of former governor Chris Patten about Hong Kong independence is as follows.

1. Chris Patten said that "we should return to discuss the issues of governance and democracy instead of Hong Kong independence." The Hong Kong National Party reiterates that if the people of Hong Kong do not have sovereignty, then there cannot be any genuine democracy, and governance will be completely controlled by the Chinese government. The pursuit of independence is the realization of the pursuit of democracy, freedom and human rights. No civilized nation can allow the Fascist tumor of the Communist Party to continue to grow.

2. Youngspiration had never advocated Hong Kong independence, but Patten used "student antics" to describe the actions of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, linking them with all the supporters of Hong Kong independence, including the Hong Kong localist movements or the entire independence movement. The Hong Kong National Party regrets this biased and incomplete position.

3. Patten has been away from Hong Kong for some years already. Occasionally he makes quick trips or attend public events. But everything about democracy and livelihood has deteriorated in Hong Kong society during these 19 years. In addition, Patten spoke "the loss of the moral high ground achieved in 2014." The Hong Kong National Party believes that even if the people of Hong Kong occupy the moral high ground, they cannot dislodge the objective fact of Chinese colonization. Patten is ignoring how the people of Hong Kong are being oppressed under colonialism.

4. The role of China today is like that of Nazi Germany. The people of Hong Kong have moral reasons to break away from authoritarianism. Anti-colonialism is the consensus of all civilized societies in the 21st century. The Hong Kong National Party respects the fact that Patten defended Hong Kong democracy against the Chinese government. If Patten cares about the development of democracy in Hong Kong, he should tell the international community about the colonialism practiced by China in Hong Kong. He should not repeat the historical policy of appeasement.

- Chris Patten has been away from Hong Kong for such a long time that he now knows absolutely nothing about the situation in Hong Kong. He should have cited the Joint Sino-British Declaration to criticize China. Instead, he blamed the resisters. He should scram back to England!

- The way that I read the subliminal message beneath Chris Patten's speech is that Hong Kong is ungovernable under China, so the most practical solution is for China to return Hong Kong to the United Kingdom in order to rebuild an independent Hong Kong Nation that is governable.

- I completely agree. It doesn't matter what Patten actually said. I didn't listen to the speech and I don't care about what he actually said either. I only know that this has to be the conclusion.

- This is the first time that I was disappointed in Chris Patten. He is now on the enemies' list for me.

- Chris Patten is a one-thousand-year sinner against the cause of Hong Kong independence.

- Since Chris Patten was opposed to Brexit, it is not surprising that he does not like Hong Kong independence.

- Since Chris Patten was opposed to Scottish independence, it is not surprising that he does not like independence.

- Chris Patten is an ugly fat bumbling slob who is losing his hair. He should vanish from sight forever.

- Chris Patten is a product that is past its expiry date. He spouts freedom, democracy and human rights all the time, but all he wants is to connive some favors from the Commies. By attacking the two pro-democracy legislators, Patten has shown that he is a fifty-cent ganger.

-  Chris Patten's speech has created plenty of glass shards on the floor as so many fragile glass hearts have been smashed into smithereens. At all the demonstrations, there were always people who show up with the Union Jack on behalf of Hong Kong independence, because they saw independence being achieved in two steps: (1) China hands sovereignty back to the United Kingdom; (2) the United Kingdom will determine how to implement democracy in Hong Kong, either as an independent nation or as part of the United Kingdom.

But now Chris Patten has broken their glass hearts.

- Chris Patten says that the Oath of Allegiance is a serious matter for the Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom. Here are some 'antics': Richard Burgon (Labour Party MP) in 2015; Dennis Skinner (Labour Party, MP) in 2010. These blokes were seriously unserious about their oaths.

- Hong Kong independence is impossible, but Cantonese independence is certainly feasible. The Grand Cantonese Nation (including Hong Kong, Macau, Guangdong, Guangxi) is unified by a common language (Cantonese) and they form a huge self-sufficient economic bloc of more than 100 million people with complete infrastructure in place already. The Grand Cantonese Nation can initiate a Southeast Asian Economic Co-Prosperity Sphere with Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Philippines without having to include those backward-thinking northern Chinese.

- What Grand Cantonese Nation? Thanks to Deng Xiao-ping, these uneducated and unskilled natives were able to prosper from the rent collected from their lands. Guangzhou and Shenzhen have higher GDP's than Hong Kong already.

 - Chris Patten brilliantly touched on the central issue: "Hong Kong independence is diluting the democratic forces." This is exactly what the Communist plot is about -- using the independence talk to stop democracy in Hong Kong. And the whole oath debacle was directed and carried out by CY Leung in order to enable his own re-election as Chief Executive for five more years.

- If CY Leung hadn't talk about Hong Kong independence, it would never have happened. Now that CY Leung has done it, we the people of Hong Kong have no choice but to forge ahead. There is no room to reverse course anymore. We live free or die!

- CY Leung is so devious. He made Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching, Lau Siu-lai, etc willingly screw up their oaths of office just so he can be re-elected for five more years.

- Oh, hell, Chris Patten is saying all this today because he has to defend the interests of British businesses in Hong Kong as well as China. The United Kingdom gets nothing from democracy in Hong Kong.

- If Chris Patten was genuinely concerned about the people of Hong Kong, he should get the British government to change the status of all BNO passport holders to full British citizen status with right of abode. But, of course, he won't do that.

- Three clear messages in Chris Patten speech: (1) 2014 Occupy Central was a moral high point; (2) Hong Kong independence is hopeless; (3) no comment on CY Leung and his government.

Here is what it all adds up to: Chris Patten is making this trip to Hong Kong in order to help the traditional pan-democrats (as represented by Anson Chan, Martin Lee, Democratic Party, Civic Party, Labour Party, etc).

Firstly, the traditional pan-democrats nominally supported 2014 Occupy Central. Patten is here to remind us of their moral superiority.

Secondly, the traditional pan-democrats have been losing votes to pro-independence/self-determination localists. Patten is here to slap down the localists.

Thirdly, Patten is here is to unify the traditional pan-democrats. Now everyone of them have their pet issues (such as minimum wage, maximum working hours, universal retirement protection, public housing, environmental protection, etc) but there is one issue that will unite all of them: ABC (Anyone But CY Leung). That is why Patten timed his visit to just before the formation of the Election Committee and the commencement of the Chief Executive election season.

- (1) is absurd. The British cops would have removed any Occupy demonstrators if they tried to occupy central London for 79 days. For example, (YouTube) London police violently suppressed students demonstrating against tuition fee hikes. Who has moral superiority?

- The reason why the localist/independence forces have been getting so much publicity is that the traditional pan-democrats refuse to denounce them loudly and openly in the manner of Chris Patten. Therefore, the Fat Man is here to show them how. But if a reporter were to ask the traditional pan-democrats for comments on this part of Patten's speech, they will continue to duck. You can't teach new tricks to old dogs.

- (TVB) Chris Patten said that a government must put the citizens in the core, and the Joint Sino-British Declaration guarantees the freedoms, rights and duties of the citizens.

- Eh, a 'treaty' is not going to guarantee anything. If treaties are binding, then we should still be enforcing the terms of the Treaty of Nanking. It is the Constitution that guarantees your freedoms, right and duties. In the case of Hong Kong, it is the Basic Law.

- Occupy Central spent 79 days occupying Admiralty/Mong Kok/Causeway Bay to demand "genuine universal suffrage" in the form of one-person-one-vote with civil nomination. Patten can't say that the Joint Sino-British Declaration promised this "genuine universal suffrage", because it doesn't. JSBD 1(4) only says: "The chief executive will be appointed by the Central People's Government on the basis of the results of elections or consultations to be held locally." Note that it is through "elections or consultations." China can just hold fake consultations without even bothering with elections under the terms of this so-called "treaty."

If you ignore the JSBD and want to talk about universal values instead, then the United Kingdom itself does not even have "genuine universal suffrage" in the form of one-person-one-vote with civil nomination. Their Prime Minister is elected by the ruling party's MPs only. The people have no say. So who is Patten trying to kid?

- (Apple Daily) November 26, 2016. With respect to Chris Patten characterizing the Leung-Yau actions as "student antics" and insisting that Hong Kong democracy must not be mixed up with independence, Leung Chung-hang said that he respects Patten's personal position. Leung said that since the implementation of Basic Law is less than perfect, then the United Kingdom as the party which negotiated with China has the moral obligation to intervene. "In 2016, the people of Hong Kong ran into many difficulties with the implementation of the Joint Sino-British Declaration without any solution. As one side of the contract, shouldn't the United Kingdom have the moral duty to deal with this?"

- The slogans always say "Hong Kong people should determine their futures themselves" and "Hong Kong matters should be resolved by the Hong Kong people." Great! But when the going gets tough, the proponents of autonomy/self-determination/independence run to foreign countries for help. What gives?

- Leung Chung-hand said that about 20% of the votes went to self-determination/independence candidates in the September 2016 Legco elections. The problem right now is that their voices in parliament -- namely, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching -- have been silenced. Therefore it the moral duty of Chris Patten to do something about it.

When you hear this, your immediate question will be: Where did this 20% come from? After all, Leung Chung-hang got 7% of the votes in New Territories East and Yau Wai-ching got 6% of the votes in Kowloon West. Leung will tell you that the 20% refers to the total votes for self-determination/independence candidates, and he is going to enumerate how legislators such as Chu Hoi Dick, Lau Siu-lai, Yiu Chung-yim, Cheung Chung-tai, Nathan Law, etc have also expressed such opinions and taken such actions.

Ahem! We now know for certain that Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching must be Chinese Communist moles. Not only do they want to lose their own Legco seats, they also want to bring the entire bloc of 20% down with them!

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Why Hong Kongers are calling for independence. By Koo Chau-tin. December 5, 2016.

During his recent visit to Hong Kong, Chris Patten repeatedly expressed his opposition to the independence movement. While he is free to call its advocates immature or unrealistic, he has to admit that he is just as clueless as any of them on how to move Hong Kong forward.

It is true that the Chinese government has made very clear its determination when it comes to maintaining territorial sovereignty over the past few decades, and nobody thought they are going to just let Hong Kong walk away when it wouldn’t happen for Taiwan, a de facto country. The sad truth is nobody has any productive solutions either. Hong Kongers have exhausted every other option and have still yet to find a path towards a more democratic government.

As a matter of fact, no one has ever advanced their political rights under the modern day Chinese government. In 1984, the British government tried on behalf of the Hong Kong people. Today, the only thing they can offer when Beijing violates the Joint Declaration is condemnation. In 1992, Patten himself tried by reforming the legislature. Everything was undone the moment he stepped onto the Royal Yacht Britannia on 1 July 1997. The pan-democratic politicians have been trying since then.

The only real achievement they made in 20 years was adding ten democratically-elected seats to the legislature. In 2014, hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens tried by taking to the streets. With the world watching, they, too, failed miserably. The villagers of Wukan in mainland China almost succeeded in 2011. Unfortunately, their leader Lin Zulian is now in jail so he can’t share his experience with us either.

The independence movement wasn’t born out of nothing. It was born out of the failure of all others. Independence has always been, and will always be the last resort. But the political situation now is just so devastating that many young people see no other ways than to turn to the idea of independence, however infinitesimal the chances of succeeding are. Yes, they may not have anything close to a concrete plan, but even that seems more hopeful than the path pan-democrats took in the past 20 years. Pan-democrats have contributed much to raise political awareness among Hong Kong citizens, but it is just not enough to stop China from slowly encroaching on Hong Kong’s freedom.

Democracy has always been inseparable from self-determination. Patten should know better as a former British MP. Democracy is not just about free speech and fair courts. It is about letting the people be the ultimate source of power. This is not the case in Hong Kong, and will never be as long as Hong Kong remains under Chinese rule. With Beijing tightly controlling both the executive and legislative branch of the Hong Kong government, there is absolutely no accountability and they can completely ignore the will of the people.

Would Hong Kongers voluntarily pledge allegiance to Beijing if they were free to choose their own future? Given how pragmatic Hong Kongers are, that is actually highly probable. But in 2014, Beijing refused to take even that chance. Instead, it broke its promise and rolled out a proposal for a North Korean-style election. That was when Hong Kongers finally realized what a blatant lie “One Country Two System” was. It is just another set of rules they use to manipulate our city.

The Chinese government and its proxy in Hong Kong can do whatever they want because there are no checks and balances on their power. Mainland law enforcers can come to Hong Kong and just grab some political dissenters away. Beijing can interpret the Basic Law however they want to bend the system in their favour. The Hong Kong government can spend hundreds of billions (literally) of Hong Kongers’ money to build infrastructure that only Beijing wants. Let’s face it – “One Country Two System” was never going to work, especially with an ever-growing authoritarian power like China.

Patten also criticized the independence movement for diluting support for democracy and dissipating the moral high ground established in the unsuccessful Umbrella Revolution. He said this because he spent most of his political career in a real democracy. That is why when he was appointed to govern Hong Kong, he cared about what the people think, and Hong Kongers remember that. But the Chinese government doesn’t give a damn, and when they don’t give a damn, moral high grounds alone won’t get you anywhere – not to mention there is nothing immoral about fighting for self-determination. Even if the pro-democratic camp is able to get all 40 democratically-elected seats in the legislature, they still won’t be able to change anything because of the rigged Functional Constituencies system, in which a handful of Beijing-backed legislators can block any legislation they put forward.

Patten advised Hong Kongers to get back to talking about governance. Indeed, some people believe governments can still serve the people without them being the ultimate source of power. But please don’t call that democracy. There is name for that kind of government and it is called benevolent dictatorship. There have been rare cases in history in which that form of government worked out, but it is a completely different argument. If Patten really believes in democracy, he should know it is about having a fair system, not merely fair outcomes. It is not about leaving the EU or not, but whether everyone has a voice in the debate.

Yes, Hong Kong’s legislature has largely been paralyzed in the past few years because of the political struggle. Hong Kongers are aware of that, but as seen from the recent Legislative Council election, we don’t really care anymore. Under the fake democracy given to us by China, legislators have no real power to carry out the will of the electorate. On the other hand, when Beijing wants something done, they can always push it through no matter how hard people try to stop it.

When your government is a joke, there is no solemnity whatsoever in the oath you take to serve it. Despite being sympathetic towards the independence movement, I, too, agree that the way Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching expressed their anger towards the Chinese government during oath-taking was rather immature. However, we must also ask ourselves why democratically-elected legislators should pledge loyalty to a dictatorship which they can’t hold accountable. Hong Kongers are stuck in a dilemma Patten has never faced. We are electing people into a system we don’t believe in, and now they are facing disqualification because they allegedly “refused” to take an oath that we don’t agree with.

Hong Kong is dying. What’s worse is it is dying slowly, too slowly that most people can’t find the urge to fight back. As Patten himself admitted, there is little he can actually do to enforce the Sino-British Joint Declaration, but he should at least try to understand the despair and frustration of the Hong Kong people. We are tired to being told what wouldn’t work. We are just desperate to find something that would.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) The Chris Patten problem: What will history make of us?  By Tim Hamlett. December 11, 2016.

What has got into our beloved Lord Patten? He seems to be annoying almost everyone. The pro-Beijing people are angry because he said nice things about democracy. The independence enthusiasts are angry because he did not say nice things about independence. The democracy seekers are not too happy either. Lord Patten’s remark that self-determination is equivalent to independence not only echoes the Beijing camp’s line, an unfortunate coincidence, but also has unhelpful implications for those who merely want an autonomous democratic region.

Saying that self-determination and independence are undistinguishable only makes sense if you believe that given the choice, most people will want independence. But in that case, from the point of view of our imperial masters, democracy is just as bad. Why allow a bunch of malcontents, who really want independence, to rule themselves in minor matters? Some writers have been quite unkind about Lord Patten. Only the purveyors of egg tarts have no complaints.

You have to wonder why he bothers. Other former governors and chief executives keep a low profile. Lord Wilson appears occasionally in his capacity of Chancellor of Aberdeen University at social events for graduates of that august institution. As a result he is the only ex-Governor I have every danced with. Mr Tung Chee-hwa has floated a think tank. But other people do the talking for it. Donald Tsang is … busy.

So there is a Patten problem. Before we explore this let me declare a non-interest. Chris Patten and I attended the same university at the same time and studied the same subject. As far as I know we never met. It was a large university. While he was the Governor of Hong Kong we never met either. We were on a couple of occasions in the same room, for the presentation of the Hong Kong News Awards. It was a very large room. Mr Patten, as he then was, had the refreshing habit of fraternizing with real reporters, rather than following the example of predecessors whose encounters with the media consisted of formal dinners with proprietors and chief editors. But I was not one of the fraternizees, which was OK by me. It is possible, if you are a pure reporter, to have sources who are friends and friends who are sources. If you are writing comments, though, this does not work. Sooner or later you arrive at “how could you write that about me?” We belong in the press box, not the boardroom. Having been quite critical of his predecessors I felt a certain obligation to be quite critical of Mr Patten. But in the big things he did pretty much what I thought was as much as you could hope for under the circumstances.

Those circumstances were that, however much Lord Patten’s affection for Hong Kong or dedication to the interests of its people, his appointment was as the local representative of the British government. And this imposed some limits. In particular the condition of British politics imposed one over-riding constraint on the disposal of Hong Kong. Nobody could say exactly what success would look like. But they knew what failure would look like: several million Hong Kongers turning up at Heathrow carrying passports giving them the right of abode in Britain. This was not because there was any great hostility to Hong Kongers, or to Chinese people, who were unthreateningly dispersed by their penchant for the restaurant business.

But “Asian immigration” had been given a bad name by an influx of Pakistani peasants whose integration presented, and indeed still presents, difficulties. A large increase would sink any government which presided over it. So Britain’s fundamental Hong Kong policy was that, whatever happened, Hong Kong people should stay where they were. Even the modest scheme for giving selected Hong Kongers full UK passports was explicitly and repeatedly justified as being intended to encourage the holders of such passports to stay in Hong Kong, not to move to Britain. Indeed even those idealists who advocated a generous distribution of passports argued that few of the resulting new Brits would be likely to move to the soggy island from which their travel documents came.

This presented a new problem for British colonial policy. All previous colonies had been handed over to their own inhabitants. Last governors took a pride in their adroit reconciliation of local forces to British ideas of democracy and the rule of law. One of the professional last Governors actually called his biography “A start in freedom.” As the years went by it did not go unnoticed that the freshly installed democratic institutions did not always last very long. A certain cynicism crept in, some of which surfaced in parliamentary debates about the future of Hong Kong. Still, there was no precedent for handing five million people over to a Communist dictator.

The answer to this problem was the Joint Declaration, which made rather generous promises about the degree of autonomy and democracy to be enjoyed in post-handover Hong Kong. The two governments involved discovered a shared interest. Britain did not want the population to leave because many of them would have wound up in London. Beijing did not want the population to leave because an empty Hong Kong would have been less valuable than a populated one. So there was a joint effort, not entirely successful, to convince hapless Hong Kongers that the future would be even better than the past, and that the murderous regime from which many of them had fled at great personal cost was now a reformed character. No doubt the negotiators involved on both sides managed to convince themselves, as well as each other, that this was in our best interests.

This was the diplomatic framework within which the last Governor had to work. As an honest man, and a democrat, Patten did his best to make it as difficult as possible for the Chinese government to go back on its word. It was not in his power to make it impossible. In order to like and respect the person he saw in the mirror every morning Patten had to believe that there was a chance, if everyone concerned played their cards right, that Hong Kong people would succeed in plucking the flower democracy from the dungheap of Stalinist despotism. unlikely though that might be. Lord Patten’s continued interest is quite understandable if you see it in this light. If things go one way, he will be seen as a modern Moses who led his children to within sight of the land of milk, honey and autonomy. If things go another way he will be seen as a contemporary version of the death camp guard who announces to the inmates, as they strip for the last time, “leave your clothes here and we will go to the next room for a nice warm shower.”

His Lordship has a stake in our struggle, and this no doubt explains his eagerness to offer unsolicited advice. Goethe wrote that “The noble soul can accomplish all/If it is wise and swift.” Lord Patten no doubt wishes to augment the supplies of wisdom and swiftness. The trouble is he has been away for nearly 20 years. Since he left we have seen the passage of many moons, and a few booksellers. The idea that there is a “democracy debate” with a regime whose local minions want people with inconvenient opinions to be “hunted down like rats” is stretching things a bit. The other day a former radio host was convicted on seven counts of trying to rig the 2015 District Council elections by bribing people to run as bogus localists.

He was offering sums totalling HK$800,000 for this service. Where did that cash come from? Look at it another way. In my constituency we had one candidate disqualified before the poll (petition pending) one disqualified after the oath taking (possible appeal pending) and one now the subject of a government application for disqualification (hearing next week?). All these efforts were made to fix the elections to a hopelessly rigged legislature. Every day we see something more like democracy with mainland characteristics. Hong Kong is pioneering a new sort of democracy: democracy designed by people who wish it to be as undemocratic as possible.

Lord Patten now expresses confidence that Hong Kong will see democracy in 2047. This sort of prediction is dangerous. No doubt he believes this to be true, just as Neville Chamberlain believed in 1938 that he had secured “peace in our time”, President Coolidge believed in 1928 that the prospects for the US economy “have never been better”, and William Pitt believed in 1792 that ”from the situation of Europe we might… expect 15 years of peace.” Political prophesy is not an exact science, especially when an earnest desire for one particular outcome clouds the view. We over-estimate the predictability of history. It does not flow, it lurches, as Taleb puts it.

Lord Patten’s good wishes are sincere and his advice well-intentioned. But Goethe also wrote that “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”

- (Headline Daily) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. December 20, 2016.

When the last governor of Hong Kong Chris Patten spoke at Hong Kong University, the press focused his denunciation of Hong Kong independence as being deluded. However, I noted a side story ...

A HKU student posed a question to Lord Patten and began in English with: "Mr Pang, how are you?"

So here is a one-hundred-year-old institution which teaches everything in English all the time. But there are still HKU students who refer to people by the first letter of the Cantonese literalization of their names.

Thus, Chris Patten is "彭定康" (Pang Ding Hong) in Chinese, but he is Lord Patten, Governor Patten or Mister Patten in English. He is not Mr. Pang in English.

Alan Zeman is "盛智文" (Sing Chi Man), but he is Mr. Zeman. He is not Mr. Sing.

Steve Jobs is "喬布斯" (Kiu Bo Si), but he is Mr. Jobs. He is not Mr. Kiu.

Brad Pitt is "畢彼特" (But Peter), but he is Mr. Pitt. He is not Mr. But.

This is not because the student spoke too fast; it is just that he never bothered to learn properly. Modern people are fed with lots of information, but they gloss over it and do not think about it. No wonder rumors and inanities propagate so easily.


Yau Wai-ching writes letter to President Tsai: Pay attention to the issue of sovereignty of New Territories (in Hong Kong)
Liberty Times

To Ms. Tsai Ing-wen, President of the Republic of China

The People's Republic of China (the government of the Republic of China on mainland China) declared its so-called "Interpretation" on November 7, 2016. Objectively, this was the same was an "law amendment" which severely interferes with Hong Kong self-rule. Without going through the scrutiny of the Hong Kong legislative apparatus, the Chinese Communists have "amended" the local Hong Kong ordinances. This clearly contravenes the Joint Sino-British Declaration made by the People's Republic of China and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

With respect to his violent interference of the People's Republic of China in judicial independence and self-rule in Hong Kong, I and my party have written to the United Kingdom government. The Chinese Communists have broken Hong Kong Basic Law Articles 22 and 158, which stipulates that they can only interpret concerning affairs which are the responsibility of the Central People's Government, or concerning the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. This recent Interpretation by the People's Republic of China has clearly violated that stipulations of the Basic Law, broken the relevant articles in the Joint Sino-British Declaration and possibly nullified the Joint Sino-British Declaration. That Declaration was a bilateral treaty entered into by the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China, and therefore must follow the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. At present both nations are still signatories of the Convention. So if the People's Republic of China were to reject what the United Kingdom has to say about what happened in Hong Kong, they will have violated the terms of the Joint Sino-British Declaration. Based up on Article 66 of the Vienna Convention, the United Kingdom can seek arbitration at the International Court of Justice on the validity of the Joint Sino-British Declaration and consider reverting the position of Hong Kong's sovereignty back to the status on June 30, 1997.

Under the Treaty of Nanking and the Convention of Peking, Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (south of Boundary Street) were ceded by the Qing Nation to the United Kingdom in perpetuity. The United Kingdom leased the New Territories from the Qing Nation for 99 years. Therefore the Joint Sino-British Declaration can only cover the issue of sovereignty for Hong Kong Island and Kowloon but not for the New Territories. It is controversial for the Joint Sino-British Declaration to lump the New Territories together with Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. At this time, the People's Republic of China has broken the Joint Sino-British Declaration, which is the sole basis for the Chinese Communist to claim "ownership" of sovereignty in Hong Kong. In addition, the lease for the New Territories ended in 1997. Since then the People's Republic of China has taken illegal possession of the New Territories for 19 years. I hope that President Tsai will become seriously concerned about the sovereignty of the New Territories.

On June 9, 1898, 56 years after Hong Kong Island was ceded by the Qing Nation, the British government and the Qing government in Beijing signed the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territories to lead the territory from the north of Boundary Street to south of the Shenzhen River, along with 233 nearby islands for a period of 99 years until June 30, 1997. If the Joint Sino-British Declaration is no longer valid, the Republic of China still retains one of the three treaties concerning the sovereignty of Hong Kong. The Republic of China should make an official position about its view of the place of New Territories within the framework of the Constitution of the Republic of China. For example, what is the difference between the sovereignty of Hong Kong Island/Kowloon and that of the New Territories? Will President Tsai enter into negotiations with the British government as a result?

I recommend that President Tsai examine this issue and state your position in order to clarify confusions. I request that President Tsai provide me with updates on this matter.

Yau Wai China
Representative of public opinion in Hong Kong as elected legally by democratic election.
November 21, 2016.

(SCMP) November 23, 2016.

Disqualified pro-independence lawmaker Yau Wai-ching apologised for causing a misunderstanding after a Taiwanese newspaper published her proposed letter to Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen to call her attention to the recent political turmoil in Hong Kong.

The city’s constitutional affairs minister Raymond Tam Chi-yuen also weighed in on the matter on Wednesday, saying that “no foreign country, official or authorities from other places should interfere with Hong Kong’s internal affairs”.

Yau wrote on her Facebook page on Tuesday that she had planned to write to Tsai over the recent interpretation of the Basic Law initiated by Beijing, but the letter published by Chinese-language daily Liberty Times was just a draft that had already been rejected. It is understood that it had been turned down by Yau’s party, Youngspiration.

The drama over the letter fuels Hong Kong’s ongoing oath-taking controversy, which will see Yau and fellow localist Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang in court on Thursday to appeal against the ruling that barred them from the Legislative Council. The High Court ruled earlier this month that the duo should be disqualified as they had “declined” to take their oaths by pledging allegiance to the “Hong Kong nation” and insulting the country at their swearing-in ceremony on October 12.

Yau argued in the draft letter that the sovereignty of the New Territories did not belong to the mainland according to the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, which should deal only with the sovereignty of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon.

That was because the New Territories became part of the British colony of Hong Kong only after London and the Qing empire signed a lease in 1898, which was supposed to expire in 1997. Since the Qing empire was overthrown in 1911, and the lease – together with two treaties concerning the cession of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon – are now kept by Taiwan authorities, Taipei should explain its stance on the “constitutional status” of the New Territories, Yau urged.

She said the New Territories had been “stolen by China for 19 years” after it resumed sovereignty over the city in 1997. Yau also argued that Tsai, who is the leader of the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party, should show concern over the sovereignty of the New Territories and declare her position on the issue because there were questions over the validity of the Sino-British Joint Declaration after China’s top legislative body issued its interpretation of the Basic Law on November 7.

The ruling, which stated that lawmakers who refused to take their oaths “sincerely” would be disqualified, was described by Yau as an “obvious breach of articles in the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration”.

In Articles 1 and 2 of the Declaration, Beijing declared that “to recover the Hong Kong area (including Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories, hereinafter referred to as Hong Kong) is the common aspiration of the entire Chinese people”, and London declared that it would “restore Hong Kong” to China on July 1, 1997. Basic Law Article 1 states that Hong Kong is “an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China”.

On Tuesday night, Yau said on her Facebook page that the version of the letter published by the newspaper was just one of the drafts of a letter for Tsai on the recent interpretation of the Basic Law and the “collapse of ‘one country, two systems’,” and that the draft had been rejected. She did not explain how it then appeared in the newspaper.

“I apologise if I have created [any] misunderstanding for the Liberty Times and the public. I reiterate that I attach great importance to my relationship with Taiwan and would not act recklessly.”

Asked about the letter, a spokesman for Taiwan’s presidential office said: “Hong Kong people wanted reform and a choice on the life and system they want. The Chinese government should respond positively and conduct dialogues with patience.”

Yau said last week she had written to London to complain about Beijing’s “meddling” in the former British colony’s affairs.

Beijing-owned Global Times reported on Wednesday that “Taiwan’s presidential office said Yau’s letter would be handled by Taipei’s Mainland Affairs Council”. The tabloid also quoted Shenzhen University’s Hong Kong affairs expert Zhang Dinghuai as saying: “Yau was simply trying to get Taiwan independence forces to back Hong Kong independence and to get media attention. She will not succeed because Hong Kong people will not support such a naïve and laughable cause.”

(SpeakoutHK @ YouTube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6_DbH__6SU

Internet comments:

- Here are the relevant 'treaties':

The Treaty of Nanking or Nanjing was a peace treaty which ended the First Opium War (1839–42) between the United Kingdom and the Qing dynasty of China on 29 August 1842. The Qing government agreed to make Hong Kong Island a crown colony, ceding it to the British Queen "in perpetuity", to provide British traders with a harbor where they could unload their goods (the most important of which was opium). A copy of the treaty is kept by the British government while another copy is kept at the National Palace Museum in Taipei.

The Convention of Peking is an agreement comprising three distinct treaties concluded between the Qing Nation and the United Kingdom, France, and Russia in 1860. Article 6 of the Convention between China and the United Kingdom stipulated that China was to cede the part of Kowloon Peninsula south of present-day Boundary Street, Kowloon, and Hong Kong (including Stonecutters Island) in perpetuity to Britain. The original copy of the Convention is now kept in the National Palace Museum in Taipei.

The Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territories was an unequal treaty signed between Qing China and the United Kingdom in 1898. Under the convention, the territories north of what is now Boundary Street and south of the Sham Chun River, and the surrounding islands, later known as the "New Territories", were leased to the United Kingdom for 99 years rent-free, expiring on 30 June 1997, and became part of the crown colony of Hong Kong. The original copy of the Convention is now kept in the National Palace Museum in Taipei.

These are not treaties in the sense of the normal bilateral agreements between nations. These are Unequal Treaties:

Historian Immanuel Hsu explained that the Chinese viewed the treaties they signed with Western powers as unequal "because they were not negotiated by nations treating each other as equals but were imposed on China after a war, and because they encroached upon China's sovereign rights ... which reduced her to semicolonial status". In many cases, China was effectively forced to pay large amounts of reparations, open up ports for trade, cede or lease territories (such as Outer Manchuria and Outer Northwest China to Russian Empire, Hong Kong to Great Britain and Macau to Portugal), and make various other concessions of sovereignty to foreign "spheres of influence", following military defeats.

After World War I, patriotic consciousness in China focused on the treaties, which now became widely known as "unequal treaties". The Nationalist Party and the Communist Party competed to convince the public that their approach would be more effective. Germany was forced to terminate its rights, the Soviet Union ostentatiously surrendered them, and the United States organized the Washington Conference to negotiate them. After Chiang Kai-shek declared a new national government in 1927, the western powers quickly offered diplomatic recognition. The new government declared to the Great Powers that China had been exploited for decades under unequal treaties, and that the time for such treaties was over, demanding they renegotiate all of them on equal terms. Most of China's unequal treaties were abrogated during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The United States Congress ended American extraterritoriality in December 1943. A significant example of unequal treaties with China did outlast World War II: unequal treaties regarding Hong Kong remained in place until Hong Kong's 1997 handover.

This explains why the United Kingdom had no negotiating power in the 1980's over the handover of Hong Kong back to the People's Republic of China. All civilized nations had surrendered decades ago any gains from the unequal treaties with the Qing dynasty. So how was the United Kingdom going to cling on to the spoils from the Opium Wars? Hey, Hong Kong was the indemnity that the Qing Dynasty paid for wrongfully stopping the Brits from selling opium by force to the Chinese people! That would be morally execrable!

- Is the Joint Sino-British Declaration a treaty between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China? Will the United Nations intercede to insure that the Joint Declaration has been implemented?

(info.gov.hk) December 17, 2014.

Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that "[e]very treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it". The Joint Declaration was registered with the United Nations in order to fulfil the obligation under Article 102 of the Charter. According to the Treaty Handbook prepared by the Office of Legal Affairs of the Secretariat of the United Nations, where an instrument is registered under Article 102 of the Charter, this does not imply a judgement by the United Nations on the nature of the registered instrument, the status of a party, or any similar questions. As such, it certainly does not imply that the United Nations can "monitor" the implementation of a particular instrument on the basis of its registration by the relevant State.

Moreover, Hong Kong affairs are, in the words of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the press briefing on 30 September this year, a "domestic matter". Article 2(7) of the Charter provides that "nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter".

Under the principle of sovereign equality of States as stipulated in Article 2(1) of the Charter, no State shall interfere in the internal affairs of another. The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations in Resolution 2625 of the General Assembly (1970) stipulates that "[n]o State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason, whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State", and "[e]very State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State". The Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States in Resolution 36/103 of the General Assembly (1981) also provides for "[t]he sovereign and inalienable right of a State freely to determine its own political, economic, cultural and social systems, in accordance with the will of its people, without outside intervention, interference, subversion, coercion or threat in any form whatsoever". Non-interference in each other's internal affairs is a basic norm of international relations and a fundamental principle of international law.

- And Article 102(2) of the Charter of the United Nations says: "No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations."

That means the United Nations, the European Union, the United States of America, the Republic of China, Tsai Ing-wen, Yau Wai-ching and whoever else cannot bring the subject up before the United Nations.

- At her Hong Kong Legislative Council oath of office, Yau Wai-ching produced a "Hong Kong Is Not China" banner.

But in her letter to Republic of China President Tsai Ing-wen, she seems to agree that China indeed has sovereignty over Hong Kong. Under the Treaty of Nanking and the Convention of Peking, Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded in perpetuity to the United Kingdom. In theory, the United Kingdom has permanent ownership and they can do whatever they want, such as leasing it to the Sultan of Brunei in exchange for oil or gifting it to David and Victoria Beckham or whatever. But in 1997, the United Kingdom chose to hand sovereignty of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon back to China whose lawful representative is the People's Republic of China.

Under the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territories, New Territories was leased (but not ceded) by the Qing Dynasty to the United Kingdom for 99 years (1898-1997). At the end of the lease term, the United Kingdom returned New Territories back to China whose lawful representative is the People's Republic of China.

What Yau Wai-ching wants Tsai Ing-wen to do is to produce the original copy of the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territories from the National Palace Museum in Taipei and claim to be the true owner of New Territories!

- In the 1980's the United Kingdom realized that the status of Hong Kong cannot continue indefinitely. The lease for New Territories was due to terminate. So they entered negotiations. But with whom?

On any matter related to "China", United Nations Resolution 2758 says that the People's Republic of China is the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations. Who else could the United Kingdom negotiate with?

Owning the original copy of the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territories does not make you the owner if you are not the recognized state entity. The lawful representatives of China are the owners, not the person holding the physical piece of paper.

- Yau Wai-ching knows that success cannot be achieved by a handful of valiant pro-independence warriors. So she has to get powerful nations to do this. But in realpolitik, the question is: What is in it for me?

Let us suppose that the United Kingdom determines that the People's Republic of China has violated the terms of the 'treaty' known as the Joint Sino-British Declaration and went to the International Court of Justice to obtain a ruling that the status of Hong Kong be returned to that on June 30, 1997: to wit, a British colony.

Guess what? They will find the place completely ungovernable. They will own all the unsolvable problems with none of the previous benefits. There will be demonstrations every day, ranging from pro-independence Youngspiration demonstrations led by the selfsame Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching to pro-unification demonstrations led by Anna Chan and Voice of Loving Hong Kong to pro-agriculture/anti-development demonstrations led by Chu Hoi Dick to pro-unlicensed vendors demonstrations led by Lau Siu-lai to pro-"genuine universal suffrage" demonstrations led by the Civic Human Rights Front. What will they do? Send out the police and use tear gas/water cannons to disperse the crowds occupying the streets?

So it will be a quick exit for the born-again colonialists in the form of "democratic elections" with "genuine universal suffrage in the form of one-person-one-vote and civil nomination." Whoever wins the election to form the next government will find Hong Kong to be completely ungovernable. If that person is from the pro-democracy camp, then the pro-China camp will do everything possible to obstruct and sabotage. If that person is from the pro-China camp, then the pro-democracy camp will do everything possible to obstruct and sabotage. If that person is neither pro-China nor pro-democracy, then both camps will do everything possible to obstruct and sabotage. Whoever it is, that person will own all the unsolvable problems, and will hold the United Kingdom responsible for the mess that was left behind.

So why would the United Kingdom be interested?

Let us suppose that the Republic of China (Taiwan) determines that it is the true owner of New Territories as suggested by Yau Wai-ching. So they produce the original copy of the Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territories and file for ownership at the International Court of Justice. Guess what? Only States (members of the United Nations) may be parties to contentious cases, and the Republic of China is not a member of the United Nations. Furthermore the Court is competent to entertain a dispute in this situation only if "the States have entered into a special agreement to submit the dispute to the Court." Why would either the United Kingdom or the People's Republic of China agree?

But the big problem with Taiwan is not even about any international issues. It is about its own domestic politics, especially since the honeymoon period is over for President Tsai. Hey, if President Tsai Ing-wen and her Democratic Progressive Party want to count on the support of pro-independence elements in Taiwan, then joining the fray with the standing as the Republic of China over the status of Hong Kong is out of the question. Their slogan is "Taiwan is not China". They may even give a friendly shout of "Hong Kong is not China" in order to irk China. But they won't stick their necks out for Hong Kong because they and everybody else know that "Hong Kong is not Taiwan" either.

- Let's go through with a logical analysis.

First you assume "Hong Kong is China."

Next you assume "Taiwan is China."

As a result, you deduce that "Hong Kong is Taiwan."

Unfortunately, none of "Hong Kong is China", "Taiwan is China" and "Hong Kong is Taiwan" is palatable. Pro-Hong Kong independence people don't accept "Hong Kong is China." Pro-Taiwan independence people don't accept "Taiwan is China." And absolutely nobody accepts that "Hong Kong is Taiwan."

- Actually, it is an intriguing "What If" exercise if we go through with the Republic of China getting the International Court of Justice to grant sovereignty for New Territories. When that happens, New Territories belongs to the Republic of China. The border with Shenzhen stays as is. But Boundary Street becomes the border once more as fences are set up between Kowloon and New Territories. The 3.6 million people who live in the New Territories become Republic of China citizens. Everybody who lives on one side of the border will need a visa in order to travel to the other side.

- For example, a Hong Kong Islander will need a visa to attend the Jockey Club races in Sha Tin. You have to go through security screening, immigration control and customs inspection at a border post every time. [By the way, this may be moot because the horses belong to the Hong Kong Jockey Club, and horse racing is not allowed in the Republic of China.]

The Hong Kong International Airport is located in the New Territories, which means that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will no longer have its own airport. Shenzhen International Airport will take over instead. The Hong Kong International Airport is surrounded on all sides by the People's Republic of China, so they will have to negotiate air corridors. They will get something but nothing like what they are getting right now. Air traffic volume will plummet.

The Hong Kong container port located in and around Kwai Chung, New Territories. Previously ships unload their containers in Kwai Chung to be shipped to mainland China. Those containers will go to Shenzhen which handles more volume than Hong Kong already. With reduced container demand, this means that the brownland in New Territories will be freed for inhabitation and recreation.

The High Speed Rail from China will stop in Shenzhen, the passengers will exit China and clear ROC customs to enter New Territories, they will re-embark the train and continue the train ride, they will disembark at Boundary Street, they will exit ROC and clear Hong Kong customs, they will re-embark the train which will deposit them at the Kowloon Terminal.

The Republic of China government will now have to deal with the 'country squires' (=indigenous inhabitants) and their inherited land rights as guaranteed by Basic Law Article 40. Undoubtedly they will think initially that they can just take those rights away in the name of fairness and equality, but they get their sorry asses handed back to them when the rioting gets out of hand.

The residents of New Territories are now ROC citizens and therefore must perform compulsory military service under the Military Services Act as well as Article 20 of the ROC Constitution ("The people shall have the duty of performing military service in accordance with law").

In 2015, Taiwan military expenditure was USD 10,310 million or about 3% of the GDP. Of this, USD 2,2000 million is earmarked for military hardware purchases from the United States. Taiwan wants to buy the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth warplanes which has a price a price tag of USD 100 million each to replace its soon-to-be-junked F-16's. When Hong Kong joins the Republic of China, military expenditure will have to rise sharply because of the need to defend Hong Kong, and Hong Kong will have to pay its fair share. In 2015, the GDP per capita in Hong Kong was USD 42,423, so a 4% contribution is about USD 1700 per capita.

Will Hong Kong schools continue to be taught in Cantonese? Or do they have to be taught in Mandarin in order to maintain a single standard for the Republic of China? After screaming all these years against any form of education that includes putonghua and national history, what will the Localists say now? Instead of the history of the foreign nation known as China, the schoolchildren of Hong Kong will study the history of their home country, Taiwan!?

The television/radio spectrum is currently shared by Hong Kong and mainland China. The Republic of China may end up with no over-the-air radio/television stations of its own in New Territories. Of course, there will always be cable television running Taiwan programs. They have lots of politicized news stations over there, so that Hongkongers can watch how the Democratic Progressive Party and the Nationalist Party make decisions that affect Hong Kong but which Hong Kong cannot influence.

The MTR system currently covers Hong Kong/Kowloon/New Territories. The MTR Corporation, being a Hong Kong-based company, will claim all the carriages. The tracks in New Territories now belong to the Republic of China, but they have no trains. The MTR service will stop at Mong Kok East and Nam Cheong, with nothing running further north. The Republic of China will have to buy its own trains. Let's see if it takes less than the 20+ years for the Taipei Airport Express.

New Territories is basically a large bedroom community. Four of the pillars of the Hong Kong economy -- finance, tourism, retail and service -- are located in Hong Kong Island/Kowloon. This means ROC citizens in New Territories will have to apply for work permits in order to keep their jobs in Hong Kong Island/Kowloon. Many more ROC citizens in Taiwan will want to move to the New Territories because of the relatively higher wages.

New Territories has the Hong Kong International Airport and Disneyland in Lamma Island and the container port facilities in Kwai Chung. But there are similar or better facilities in mainland China already (Shenzhen Bao'an International Airport, Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport, Zhuhai Jinwan Airport; Port of Shenzhen, Port of Guangzhou, Port of Zhanjiang). So Hong Kong's logistics industry, which is there mainly to facilitate importing to China, will simply move to the nearby Hong Kong/China locations.

And you can also be sure that Cheung Chau would want to be unified with Hong Kong rather than New Territories. Cheung Chau will hold their own referendum under the principle of Local Self-Determination. Once Cheung Chau shows the way, you can expect many more local communities to follow suit.

- Of course, the whole idea is that Taiwan should pay the price to fight for the separation of New Territories from the Republic of China. After that happens, the people of Hong Kong will fight to separate from Taiwan to form the Hong Kong Nation. There is no intention of ever becoming part of Taiwan. It is easier to fight Taiwan than China.

- About those 'country squires', they are not going to like being handed over without ensuring that their rights are protected.

(Wikipedia) New Territories

Before the handover of New Territories to Great Britain in early April of 1899, Captain Superintendent of Police, Francis Henry May and some policemen erected a flagstaff and temporary headquarters at Tai Po and posted the Governor's proclamation of the takeover date. Fearing for their traditional land rights, in the Six-Day War of 1899, a number of clans attempted to resist the British, mobilising clan militias that had been organised and armed to protect against longshore raids by pirates. The militia men attempted a frontal attack against the temporary police station in Tai Po that was main British base but were beaten back by superior force of arms. An attempt by the clansmen at guerilla warfare was put down by the British near Lam Tsuen with over 500 men Chinese killed, and collapsed when British artillery was brought to bear on the walled villages of the clansmen. Most prominent of the villages in the resistance Kat Hing Wai, of the Tang clan, was symbolically disarmed, by having its main gates dismounted and removed. However, in order to prevent future resistance, the British made concessions to the indigenous inhabitants with regards to land use, land inheritance and marriage laws; the majority of which remained in place into the 1960s when polygyny was outlawed. Some of the concessions with regard to land use and inheritance remain in place in Hong Kong to this day and is a source of friction between indigenous inhabitants and other Hong Kong residents.

- Tsai Ing-wen's Democratic Progressive Party responded to the unsent letter at 23:20 that night.

In essence, the DPP says: "It is bad to have family squabbles, so your family should learn to get along and live long and prosperous lives. In any case, your family affairs are none of my business."

- (CTV) Taiwan television commentators criticize the two young persons from Hong Kong.

- Someone who wants Hong Kong independence/self-determination is actively soliciting the Republic of China to claim sovereignty over Hong Kong?

- The Republic of China does not even have sovereignty over Taiwan. How can they make claims for the New Territories in Hong Kong?

- Yau Wai-ching is setting up Tsai Ing-wen to fail. If the Taiwan government proceeds to claim sovereignty over New Territories, then the Democratic Progressive Party is acting as a pro-Unification/One China party just like the KMT. If the Taiwan government proceeds to declare that Taiwan is Taiwan and they have nothing to do with China (including Hong Kong), then this is a declaration of Taiwan independence. So the only option for Tsai is the current one: The matter has been handed over to the Mainland Affairs Council to study. And they will study this for a long long time. Since Yau has disavowed the letter, this matter no longer even needs to be addressed.

- Plausible deniability:

\

Yau Wai-ching's Facebook:

My response to the report in Liberty Times about my letter to President Tsai Ing-wen:
1. I did consider sending a letter to President Tsai in the hope that she can pay attention to the recent Interpretation affair in Hong Kong and the collapse of One Country Two Systems in Hong Kong.
2. At first, I wanted to bring out the issue of the future of Hong Kong in 2047 in order give the people of Hong Kong more ideas
3. The version published in Liberty Times was one of the draft versions, but it has been rejected.
4. I realized that there was a misunderstanding this afternoon and I have called to put a stop to it.
5. I apologize if this caused any misunderstanding at Liberty Times and with the mass of citizens.
6. I re-emphasize that I place great importance in the relationship with Taiwan and I will not act rashly.

- Yau Wai-ching's 'advisor' Lam Ho-ki was asked about the letter: "One of your suggestions?"  He responded: "None of my business." However, Lam praised Yau as being a brilliant thinker who is way ahead of other Hongkongers. BWAHHHHHHH!

- It is standard operation procedure for Youngspiration to do something and disavow it afterwards as if it had never happened. But this time they blew Liberty Times up as collateral damage.

- Dear Ms. Yau, what the fuck are you up to? I don't mind if you don't have a timetable for Hong Kong independence. I don't mind if you don't have a roadmap for Hong Kong independence. I don't mind if you leave a mess behind you for us to clean up. But why the fuck do you want to mess with Taiwan? If Tsai Ing-wen doesn't respond, Hong Kong would look fucking worthless. If Tsai Ing-wen does respond, what can she really do for Hong Kong independence? For God's sake, don't make this a big story in Liberty Times in order that the people of Taiwan can say, "What the fuck are the problems of the people of Hong Kong to us?" We end up fucking worse off than ever. #please_fucking_stop.

- Fuck! How the fuck could Liberty Times print a draft letter unless someone in Yau's circle sent them a copy!? Obviously, Younspiration panicked after they saw the adverse reaction and decided to control the damage by disavowal.

- Yau Wai-ching has apologized to Liberty Times. If Liberty Times had obtained and published the letter without authorization, Yau Wai-ching should be suing them. So if she apologizes, it means that she (or someone in her circle) gave the so-called 'draft' letter to Liberty Times for publication. Originally Yau Wai-ching was supposed to discuss this letter at 5pm via Facebook live coverage, but she canceled that event and issued the disavowal at 8pm. So there must have been internal dissension at Youngspiration to cause the letter to be rescinded.

What was the dissension about? The published letter focused on the sovereignty of the Republic of China over New Territories. The disavowal said that the original intention was to deal with the issue of the future of Hong Kong in 2047. This means that the opposing opinion within Youngspiration is that Republic of China sovereignty is dead-on-arrival.

- Yau Wai-ching is advocating separatism. If she wanted Hong Kong to be free of China before, now she wants New Territories to be free of Hong Kong. Of course, the Localists will react negatively to this destruction of territorial integrity of the Hong Kong Nation by handing half the population to an alien putonghua/minnan/hakka-speaking outside non-sovereign entity which has never ruled over Hong Kong before.

- The most appealing idea behind Hong Kong independence is self-determination -- the people of Hong Kong should be their own boss and decide what they want for themselves. Therefore, this letter is a cardinal sin, because the unauthorized Yau Wai-ching wants to cut a private deal with the President of the Republic of China to determine the future of the 3.6 million New Territories residents, without consulting them or holding a referendum.

- If you hold a referendum on the future of New Territories, what are the choices?

1. New Territories is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

2(a). New Territories is part of the People's Republic of China under One Country One System

2(b). New Territories is part of the People's Republic of China under One Country Two Systems

3(a). New Territories is part of the Republic of China (Taiwan) under One Country One System

3(b) New Territories is part of the Republic of China (Taiwan) under One Country Two Systems

My guess is that the distribution of votes among New Territories citizens will be:

1. 2%
2(a). 5%
2(b). 90%
3(a). 0%
3(b). 3%.

- Who gets to vote to decide the future of New Territories? Those who reside in the New Territories obviously should be able to determine their own future. But what about those who live in Hong Kong Island and Kowloon? They have families, properties, businesses and other ties in New Territories, and they should be considered stakeholders. But, alas, this cannot be. Because if you let the Hong Kong Island and Kowloon residents vote, it means that some day you will have to let the 1.4 billion people in mainland Chinese vote on the future of Hong Kong. We cannot allow that, so we must sacrifice the interests of the Hong Kong Island and Kowloon residents at this time. Sorry, but that's life.

- Why did the United Kingdom have to agree to hand Hong Kong back over to the People's Republic of China? Couldn't they just hand the leased New Territories back while keeping the perpetually ceded Hong Kong Island and Kowloon?

For one thing, Hong Kong's shipping ports (airports and port facilities), reservoirs and other vital installations are located in New Territories. More importantly, it would have been impossible to accommodate those New Territories residents moving to Hong Kong Island and Kowloon before the handover takes effect.

- (Bastille Post) When it came to "6. I re-emphasize that I place great importance in the relationship with Taiwan and I will not act rashly", the immediate reaction is that Tsai Ing-wen is indeed the big boss behind the Localist movement in Hong Kong! This was a pledge of fealty!

- Wan Chin: When the young people of Hong Kong travel to Taiwan and get asked about what Yau Wai-ching did to Liberty Times, they will be extremely embarrassed. As for myself, I can only say: "The people of Hong Kong really let the people of Taiwan down."

- The likely response from Yau Wai-ching:

- Same old song: (Harbour Times) August 23, 2016.

Last week, Youngspiration spokesperson Kenny Wong Chun-kit allegedly leaked Youngspiration’s plan to invite Taiwanese separatist group New Power Party (時代力量) to Hong Kong to Local Press, a localist news outlet in Hong Kong. After Local Press published the interview, Wong denied the plan and accused Local Press of releasing false information. Wong’s reaction was frowned upon by Local Press’s readership. When disappointment soon escalated to online outrage, Wong was forced to apologise and resign as Youngspiration’s spokesperson.

- In 2016, we saw the destructiveness of moles. Thus, Youngspiration managed to destroy the entire Localist movement in just a matter of months. During the Legislative Council elections, they worked with Operation ThunderGo to splinter the localist movement into Youngspiration/Hong Kong Indigenous versus Civic Passion/Proletariat Political Institute/Hong Kong Resurgence Order. During the oath of office, they managed to offend the entire Chinese population in the world, weakened rule-of-law, diminished the stature of the Legislative Council and gave up their two Legco seats. Are they going to disappear into the sunset after accomplishing their mission? No, they want to destroy relationships among the worldwide independence movements as well!

- Youngspiration cannot be so naive to think that they have a breakthrough here. But media exposure is decreasing after losing the two Legco seats, so they need some gimmicks. If President Tsai acted on their suggestion and face a powerful response from China (such as the cessation of all trade and travel for the foreseeable future), they will have achieved immortal fame.

- If we give them the $5,000,000 that they want, will they really promise to go away? Please. Pretty please.

- (SCMP) Spies and conspirators? Beijing needs neither to crush Hong Kong independence. By Michael Chugani. November 22, 2016.

It all began two years ago. Conspirators plotted a script so ingenious it was the stuff of Hollywood. Double agents, deceit, you name it, the plot had it. Every move was so masterful that no one suspected anything until it was too late.

As co-conspirator, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying was tasked with putting the plot into play. He used his January 2015 policy speech to attack an obscure student magazine for advocating independence. His aim was not to stifle the voice of independence but to deviously stoke it so he could crack down hard to prove himself as a strong leader Beijing should trust for another term.

As chief conspirator, Beijing bankrolled Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching of Youngspiration who posed as champions of independence to win Legislative Council seats. They played their parts perfectly by using their oath-taking to insult China, giving Beijing an excuse to smack the independence movement. It did that with a Machiavellian touch by interpreting the Basic Law in a way that not only excludes independence supporters from the Legislative Council, but also achieves its ulterior aim to dilute one “country, two systems” and Hong Kong’s judicial autonomy.

Who knows? The Youngspiration pair may indeed be gifted actors paid to provide Beijing with a pretext to crack down. I find it far-fetched because the plot is full of holes. But you’d be surprised how many Hongkongers believe this tale of double agents.

Opposition leaders claim Leung Chun-ying fomented, then acted tough against the independence movement to impress Beijing. Surely, if they can see through such a scheme, so can Beijing. And why would Leung need such an elaborate scheme to impress Beijing if he was in on the plot?

Do you really think Beijing needs to go to such lengths to tighten its grip on Hong Kong? We should know by now that if Beijing wanted to clench its fist, it would without hiring double agents to provide a pretext. It shoved a restrictive political reform framework down our throats, interpreted the Basic Law several times, and stood up to the Occupy protest without having to create excuses.

If Leung and Yau are really props, would Beijing give them such free rein? Their youth alone suggests they can’t be trained spies. That would make them risky double agents who could be easily pressured to spill the beans. Is Beijing really that stupid?

- When everything that you touch turns into dust or rust, you either have very bad luck or else you are a saboteur or else you are truly incompetent. Take your pick.

- (Oriental Daily) December 11, 2016.

Yesterday was World Human Rights Day. Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Ray Wong was invited to attend certain functions in Taiwan. Wong said that Taiwan has gone through two government transitions and is just one small step away from being an independent nation. He hopes that the people of Taiwan won't give up. He said that the Taiwan experience is useful for Hong Kong. He urged the independent Taiwan not to forget other places that are fighting for independence, including Hong Kong.

- (Sing Tao) In Taiwan, Ray Wong said that the people of Hong Kong are not humans, because they are merely slaves with no freedom and no thinking. Only Hong Kong independence can turn the citizens of Hong Kong into genuine human beings.

- This is more evidence that Hong Kong Indigenous/Youngspiration are Chinese Communist moles. They travel frequently to Taiwan to meet with Taiwan independence advocates and give talks. They create the impression that the Big Boss who funds and directs the Hong Kong independence movement (as in Ray Wong's $530,000 cash in brand new bills and 100 Viagra pills) are the Taiwan independence movement. The overall impact is to make people skeptical about the independence of the Hong Kong independence movement, and hence decrease interest and support.

- Dear Ray Wong, you embarrass yourself all the time in Hong Kong. But please don't go and embarrass Hong Kong in Taiwan. You go and implore Taiwan to take care of Hong Kong after independence. What kind of self-determination requires a Big Brother to act as shepherd? Hong Kong would be long dead if we have have to wait for Taiwan to achieve independence.

- Self-determination means that nations, based on respect for the principal of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference. This means no interference: from Taiwan or anyone else.

- We have been sitting around waiting for the leaders of the Hong Kong independence movement to give us a roadmap and a time table. Finally, we got one from Ray Wong: When Taiwan achieves independence, it will take care of Hong Kong independence. In the meantime, we will sit around and twiddle our thumbs.

- The waiting won't be eternal. In 31 years' time, it will be 2047 whereupon something (?) may or may not happen.

- (Video) This is Ray Wong's speech at the World Human Rights Day Carnival. It was delivered in putonghua. Of course.

- Chiu the Dragon Facebook.

港獨 is Hong Kong independence. But so far, the only thing that they have done is 講獨 ("talk about independence" with the same sounds). They say that the people of Hong Kong is a race of its own. How do you bring a subjective identification as bargaining chips for Hong Kong independence? So far, they have only said "We don't know yet" and "We are not sure." In any case, they ask people to sow the seeds of independence among the people.

Let us stipulate that the people of Hong Kong want independence some day. How are they actually going to get it?

If you think that "subjective identification" and "national awareness" are the key conditions for independence, then I suggest that you look at the Tibetans. They clearly have "subjective identification" and "national awareness." They are supported by nationalism and religion, and they have a yearning for independence that the Chinese Communists have tried to suppress over the years. But so what? They don't have independence now and they don't seem to be able to get it anytime soon. In terms of the spirit of sacrifice and nationalism, how do you think Hongkongers compare with Tibetans?

Let us suppose that the key ingredient for Hong Kong independence is the huge foreign reserves held by the Hong Kong government. We can use that money to bribe a certain superpower to help Hong Kong achieve independence. But afterwards, we become their puppets because we need them to continue to protect us. Based upon the logic of the pro-independence people, this is another form of treason/betrayal of Hong Kong.

The other crucial point is that somebody has to obtain control of the reserves in order to strike a deal with the superpower. Do the pro-independence people have control of the executive and legislative branches in Hong Kong? If not and if you also don't want to have a revolution, then how can you control the sole bargaining chip? You can't just walk into a bank and declare that you are the new owner and you want to withdraw US$100 billion from the accounts immediately. Are you going to embrace nihilism and make demands like those social movements who want to "build a democratic China"?

- Taiwan's conditions are much more favorable than Hong Kong.

Distance: Taiwan is separated from mainland China by the Taiwan Straits which range from 140 miles at the widest point and 80 miles at the narrowest. Hong Kong is separated from mainland China by the Sham Chun River, which is as little as a few dozen feet wide in places.

Armed Forces: Taiwan has an active armed force of 290,000 persons with another 5,900,000 age 15-40 available for military service. Hong Kong has no standing armed force of its own.

Foreign Support: The Taiwan Relations Act requires the United States to intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan. The United States supply Taiwan with armaments. The United States recognizes Hong Kong as a part of China. There is no Hong Kong army for the United States to arm.

Diplomatic Relations: Taiwan is recognized by 21 countries in the world, while the rest recognizes China. Hong Kong is not recognized by any country in the world.

GDP: Taiwan's nominal GDP was USD 529,597. Hong Kong's nominal GDP was USD 820,896. These are 2014 figures.

Foreign Reserves: Taiwan's foreign reserves were USD 435,263. Hong Kong's foreign reserves were USD 383,145. These were October 2016 figures.

Economic Dependency: 44% of Hong Kong's total exports go to mainland China. 40% of Taiwan's total exports go to mainland China.

Essentials: Taiwan does not rely on mainland China for food, water and energy. Hong Kong relies on mainland China for food, water and energy.

Nevertheless Taiwan has not declared independence, because (1) 80 miles is just minutes for supersonic fighters/bombers/cruise missiles/ballistic missiles; (2) the People's Liberation Army is 2-million strong; (3) US will not support a war for Taiwan independence; (4) China has veto rights at the UN Security Council; (5) China's GDP was USD 11.4 trillion in 2016 which means that it is able to carry out an expensive, drawn-out war of attrition; (6) China's foreign reserves were at USD 3,051,600 million in November 2016; (7) China's economy can afford to stop all trade with Taiwan but not vice versa.

(Tom Cotton, Arkansas Senator) November 16, 2016.

U.S. Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), a Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) Commissioner, and Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Co-Chair of the CECC, today introduced the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, legislation that would renew the United States' historical commitment to freedom and democracy in Hong Kong at a time when its autonomy is increasingly under assault. The legislation also establishes punitive measures against government officials in Hong Kong or mainland China who are responsible for suppressing basic freedoms in Hong Kong, especially in connection with the abduction of certain booksellers.

"The United States must lead the world in ensuring that the Chinese government ceases any repressive acts in Hong Kong and abides by its three-decade-old international commitment to respect the autonomy of Hong Kong," said Cotton. "This bill would empower the president to hold Beijing accountable and send a strong message to Chinese officials that attempts to undermine liberty in Hong Kong and walk away from their promises will not be without consequences. Hong Kong's unique identity and traditions of liberty, rule of law, and a market-based economy can be a model for a China that is a more productive player on the international stage. U.S. foreign policy should encourage those traditions, and strongly warn Beijing against any diminishment of those values."

"When the British handed over Hong Kong to the Chinese in 1997, Beijing promised Hong Kong would enjoy a high degree of autonomy guaranteed under Basic Law," said Rubio. "However, in recent years, Beijing has consistently undermined the ‘one country, two systems' principle and infringed on the democratic freedoms the residents of Hong Kong are supposed to be guaranteed. This was on stark display over the last year with the abduction of the Hong Kong booksellers, the required loyalty oaths in the lead-up to the September LegCo elections, and last week with Beijing's unprecedented intervention in Hong Kong's legal system to block two democratically elected politicians from assuming office. China's assault on democratic institutions and human rights is of central importance to the people of Hong Kong and to its status as a free market, economic powerhouse and hub for international trade and investment.

"The importance of this legislation was again impressed upon me today after meeting with pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong, who became the face of the Umbrella Movement for many in late 2014," added Rubio. "Joshua is an impressive and thoughtful young man who, along with his fellow activists, represents the future of Hong Kong - a future that must not go the way of Beijing's failed authoritarianism and one-party rule. It is critical in the days ahead that the democratic aspirations of the people of Hong Kong be a vital U.S. interest and foreign policy priority. The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act reaffirms America's support of the people of Hong Kong as they seek to oppose Beijing's efforts to erode democratic institutions."

The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act would:

(SCMP) January 17, 2017.

The United States Congress looks set to introduce a human rights act on Hong Kong “in the coming days” as Donald Trump takes his anti-China rhetoric to the presidency, the Post has learned.

“I look forward to reintroducing the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in the coming days,” Marco Rubio, co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional-Executive Commission on China, said in an email through a spokesman on Tuesday. “America must show leadership and support these values in our foreign policy.”

The bill was proposed in the wake of the disappearances of five Causeway Bay booksellers in 2015 who later turned up in the custody of mainland authorities. It proposed punitive measures against any government officials in Hong Kong or the mainland responsible for suppressing basic freedoms in the city.

The law would require the US president to identify persons responsible for the surveillance, abduction, detention or forced confessions of booksellers and journalists in Hong Kong or other actions suppressing basic freedoms, and to freeze their US-based assets and deny them entry into the country.

Trump’s ascension to the presidency has raised hopes among democracy activists in Hong Kong that the US will take a harder line against China on the city’s democratic development.

In recent weeks Trump has questioned the one-China policy which governs America’s relationship with Taiwan and made overtures of support to Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen, sparking a fresh point of contention with Beijing.

(EJ Insight) Marco Rubio and the HK Human Rights and Democracy Act. By Simon Shen. March 1, 2017.

US Republican Senator Marco Rubio, his partymate Tom Cotton and Democratic Senator Ben Cardin have jointly reintroduced the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act” to Congress, a move that might prompt Washington to review its policy on Hong Kong and increase uncertainty in Sino-US relations in the days ahead.

The bill dates back to early 2015 when the mysterious disappearances of two Hong Kong bookstore owners Lee Bo and Gui Minhai received widespread coverage in the western media and caught international attention.

Shortly after the incidents came to light, Rubio, then chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, expressed concern about the state of human rights in Hong Kong.

Through his efforts, a bipartisan legislative initiative known as the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act” was proposed to Congress.

However, due to the ensuing partisan gridlock in the US legislature, the bill ground to a halt and was temporarily taken off the legislative calendar. It wasn’t until recently that the bill was once again back on the agenda.

Once the bill is passed, the State Department will have to submit a report on the state of human rights and democratic development in Hong Kong to Congress on a yearly basis.

Under the new law, the US government must also identify officials in China and public office holders in Hong Kong whom they have substantial reasons to believe are threatening the freedom and autonomy of Hong Kong and act accordingly such as freezing their assets in the US or denying them visa.

As Rubio put it, the aim of the bill is to “reaffirm the historical commitment of the US to the preservation of freedom and democratic development in Hong Kong”. He added that his meeting with pro-democracy leader Joshua Wong, whom he described as an “impressive and thoughtful” young man, during his visit to Washington in November last year, has strengthened his resolve in pushing for the bill.

The meeting of Rubio and Wong and the introduction of the bill signaled a new chapter in the political interaction between Washington and Hong Kong, and could open a new international frontier for the pro-democracy movement.

Over the years, civil rights issues and democratic progress in Hong Kong have been rarely discussed in US elections, not least because most American voters find these issues irrelevant to them. And mainstream politicians are not interested either, since Hong Kong’s issues could hardly be used as a rallying point for their campaigns.

However, times have changed. As the “Hong Kong question” has begun to catch the eye of influential and promising politicians like Marco Rubio, it is likely that the Trump administration may “rediscover” the value of our city as a bargaining chip which can give it some leverage with Beijing over other strategically broader issues.

Internet comments:

-  Here is the photo of Joshua Wong (Demosisto) meeting with Senator Marco Rubio in Washington DC.

On one hand, Joshua Wong is said to be short and skinny. On the other hand, Marco Rubio is said to be 5'10" tall when enhanced his three-inch-heeled boots.

Is there any honesty left in politics?

- When Joshua Wong put on his suit, Hong Kong Internet users could only think of the classical saying 沐猴而冠 (MDBG.net: a monkey wearing a hat/worthless person in imposing attire). But was it politically correct to say something like that about a person's physical stature? Maybe not in the United States, but it is quite alright in Hong Kong because we have genuine freedom of speech here.

(Kinliu) In the town of Clay in West Virginia, a development company manager named Pamela Ramsey Taylor posted on Facebook: "It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified first lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing an ape in heels." Shortly afterwards, Clay mayor Beverly Whaling pressed praise and said: "Just made my day." The ape in heels refers to First Lady Michelle Obama.

More than 150,000 signed to demand these two individuals to resign. Within two weeks, these two individuals resigned and apologized. In the process, there were no petitions, judicial reviews or interpretations of the Constitution. The two individuals did not blame their West Virginian accents. After they resigned, they said: "I am genuinely sorry for any unhappiness that I may have caused." But under the prevailing Hong Kong logic, this was "suppressing the freedom of speech"! In the United States, 150,000 signatures were enough to bring two people down.

In Hong Kong, 600,000 signatures could not get Leung Chung-hand and Yau Wai-ching to resign or even apologize. Instead we needed a judicial review backed by an Interpretation of the Basic Law to oust these two people. Thus American democracy is even more backwards than ours here in Hong Kong.

- Let's look at the highlights of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in the Cotton press release.

- "Reaffirm the principles set forth in the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, including support for democratization, human rights, and the importance of Hong Kong remaining sufficiently autonomous from China to justify different treatment under U.S. law."

- This is just a rehash. Nothing new here.

- "Reinstate the requirement for the Secretary of State to issue a report on conditions in Hong Kong of interest to the United States, including developments related to democratic institutions in Hong Kong, no later than 90 days after enactment and every year through 2023."

- In United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992, the Secretary of State was required to issue reports on March 31, 1993, March 31, 1995, March 31, 1997, March 31, 1998, March 31, 1999, and March 31, 2000. Paperwork is meaningless unless something in there is actionable. As amended, the Secretary of State submitted reports in 1993, annually from 1995 to 2007 and in 2015.

So what? Bureaucrats have to move more meaningless paperwork around.

- "Require the Secretary of State to certify that Hong Kong is sufficiently autonomous before enacting any new laws or agreements affording Hong Kong different treatment from the People's Republic of China."

- Everybody has the right to choose whom they associate or deal with.

- The problem is about the politician's favorite tool: Triangularization. On one side, there is God's favorite son, the United States of America. On the other side, there is Satan, known on earth as the People's Republic of China. Which side is Hong Kong closer to? If the United States declare that Hong Kong is in Satan's hands and thus refuse to grant certain favors, who do you think the people of Hong Kong will blame? The Americans, of course. Who would be the happiest to see this outcome? The Chinese Communists, of course.

The winning formula for the United States is to drown Hong Kong with love and affection, while denying all the goodies to the Chinese Communists in order to show that "Hong Kong is not China"!

- Read this carefully. The target of the sanctions is Hong Kong, and not the People's Republic of China. It is Hong Kong which won't get certain favorable treatments, not the People's Republic of China. This is punishing the victim for being victimized.

- But this is completely consistent with the spirit of the Umbrella Revolution. In Hong Kong, the Yellow Ribbons opposed the Chinese Communist regime, so they decided to Occupy and make life hell for fellow citizens. But the Chinese Communists did not feel any pain and never blinked. In like manner, this piece of American legislation proposes to remove certain trade/economic privileges from Hong Kong. Do you think that the Chinese Communists will feel the pain? I think they will applaud because the result will be One Country One System in which Hong Kong and mainland China will be treated the same way by the United States.

- "Require the President to identify persons responsible for the surveillance, abduction, detention, or forced confessions of certain booksellers and journalists in Hong Kong, and other actions suppressing basic freedoms, and to freeze their U.S.-based assets and deny them entry into the U.S."

- The Hong Kong and international paparazzi haven't been able to even name the persons responsible for the surveillance, abduction, detention or forced confessions of certain booksellers and journalists in Hong Kong. Even the kidnap victims don't seem to know. For example, Lam Wing-kei only knew the case officer as Mr. Shi (with no first name). So good luck to the State Department! This clause does not say what happens if the President can't identify the persons.

- The buck stops at Xi Jinping's desk. So is the POTUS (President of the United States) not allowed under the bill to invite Xi Jinping to the United States for a summit meeting?

- Does Donald Trump want Xi Jinping to help solve the North Korean problem? If so, picking on Xi over Hong Kong would torpedo everything.

- And if the President determines that C.Y. Leung is one of those persons who kidnapped the booksellers, what is the substantive impact of freezing his U.S.-based assets (note: he has none; even if he has some assets now, they will have been moved by the time that this Act passes)?

- And if the President determines that Guo Shengkun (Minister of Public Security) is one of those persons who kidnapped the booksellers, what is the substantive impact of banning him from entering the United States (note: as Minister of Public Security in the People's Republic of China, he has no interest of visiting the United States now and forever).

- "Make clear that visa applicants who resided in Hong Kong in 2014 shall not be denied visas on the basis of the applicant's arrest, detention or other adverse government action taken as a result of their participation in the nonviolent protest activities related to Hong Kong's electoral process."

- According to the United States Consulate:

The immigration laws of the United States, in order to protect the health, welfare and security of the United States, prohibit the issuance of a visa to certain applicants. Examples of applicants who must be refused visas are:

  • Persons with certain communicable diseases of public health significance, such as tuberculosis;
  • Persons with a dangerous physical or mental disorder;
  • Persons who are drug addicts;
  • Persons who have committed serious criminal acts, including crimes involving moral turpitude, drug trafficking, and prostitution or procuring;
  • Terrorists, subversives, members of a totalitarian party and former Nazi war criminals;
  • Persons who are likely to become public charges in the United States;
  • Those who have used fraud or other illegal means to enter the United States or help others enter the United States; or
  • Those who are ineligible for citizenship.

Of course, they won't take your word that you have a clean sheet. So they will ask you to apply for a Certificate of No Criminal Conviction from the Hong Kong Police Force. This certificate will be sent directly to the U.S. Consulate General so that you have no opportunity to commit tampering/forgery.

So the Act is saying that you cannot be denied a visa because you have a police record showing convictions for unlawful assembly, obstruction of police business, disruption of public order,  etc. But you have to be very careful about the details here.

First of all, this Act covers only those who resided in Hong Kong in 2014.

If 'resided' means 'inhabiting', then if you were studying overseas in 2014 but came back in 2015 to join the fight for democracy, you are out of luck.

If 'resided' means holding the right of abode, you can be overseas in 2014 for the whole year and you will still be covered.

Secondly, you are forgiven for "arrest, detention or other adverse government action" during "your participation in the nonviolent protest activities related to Hong Kong's electoral process."

So the activity must be related to Hong Kong's electoral process. The 2014 Occupy Central/Umbrella Movement/Umbrella Revolution is about "genuine universal suffrage", so it is covered. The 2015 Lunar New Year's riot in Mong Kok is said by some of the leaders to be about the fight for the rights of unlicensed street vendors to sell fishballs in the middle of the street. So this Fishball Revolution is not covered.

The activity must also be about nonviolent protest. There were a number of violent episodes during the 2014 Occupy Central/Umbrella Movement/Umbrella Revolution. So if you were convicted of resisting arrest or assaulting a police officer or arson or vandalism in any of the actions, you are not covered.

Other leaders of the 2016 Lunar New Year's Day riot in Mong Kok said that it was a rally for Edward Leung's Legislative Council by-election campaign. So that is part of the electoral process. But they ripped bricks from the pavement to throw at the police. So that was a violent activity. Therefore you are not covered.

This is going to be a lot of work for the US Consulate General staff. The Certificate of No Criminal Conviction is simply going to list the conviction of "Unlawful Assembly" which took place on a certain date at a certain location, the date of the court trial and the sentence. It won't list whether the activity was violent or not, and it won't say whether this was a protest that was part of the electoral process. The staff will have to do their own investigation (such as reading verdict documents).

- Here is a case in which two individuals were convicted by a court "as a result of their participation in the nonviolent protest activities related to Hong Kong's electoral process."

(SCMP) November 21, 2016.

Radical lawmaker “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung was jailed for seven days on Monday for staging a protest directed at Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor during a school debating event. He was immediately freed on HK$4,000 cash bail, pending appeal. His co-defendant, People Power activist “Fast Beat” Tam Tak-chi, also received a seven-day jail sentence, suspended for 12 months.

The pair had argued that the charge against them breached their right to express themselves freely during a peaceful assembly in a public place.

But that was rejected in Eastern Court, which found both Leung, 60, and Tam, 44, had intentionally “obstructed, disturbed, interrupted or annoyed” other persons who were lawfully using the Queen Elizabeth Stadium during the 30th Annual Sing Tao Inter-School Debating Competition on May 15 last year.

Acting principal magistrate Joseph To Ho-shing said the protest was staged in a unique environment, unlike street protests where people could just leave if they did not want to be disturbed.

Acting principal magistrate Joseph To Ho-shing said the protest was staged in a unique environment, unlike street protests where people could just leave if they did not want to be disturbed. “This case involved an event that was planned for more than a year,” To said.

He said there was a need to safeguard the constitutional rights of the civic centre’s lawful users – to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression – as the law specifically protected their privileged use of the venue.

Leung and Tam, he said, could have staged their protest on another occasion while the parents and students attending the event had only one opportunity to enjoy their rights on the 30th anniversary of the competition and they had clearly showed their disagreement at the protest. Leung took a deep breath as To delivered the verdict while Tam did not react. Under the Civic Centres Regulation, the offence is punishable by a HK$5,000 fine and one-month imprisonment. Neither defendant took the stand nor called any witnesses in their favour.

The court heard that organisers had begun preparations for the event the summer before. It was attended by 2,424 students, parents, teachers and guests including Lam, former Bar Association chairman Paul Shieh Wing-tai and then-director of information services Patrick Nip Tak-kuen.

Dozens of protesters began shouting, chanting slogans, waving banners and throwing paper balls when Lam was escorted into the venue, and they repeatedly disrupted speeches by Shieh and Nip. Lam’s speech was eventually cancelled and she left the venue early. The commotion lasted for 30 minutes.

Sing Tao reported it to police a few days later and filed a civil suit in June last year, demanding more than HK$1.5 million from the duo and district councillor Mandy Tam Heung-man, also from People Power. The company is also seeking an injunction to bar the trio from its future events

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkVuE5QzVzs

Does the United States want to judge that such behavior is acceptable? In the United States?

- Senator Tom Cotton was quoted in the press release: "Hong Kong's unique identity and traditions of liberty, rule of law, and a market-based economy can be a model for a China that is a more productive player on the international stage."

Whereas a Hong Kong court found these individuals guilty in accordance with the law, the United States want to vacate the verdict for their own political purposes. What does that do for rule of law in Hong Kong? Does the United States advocate rule of man with special treatment for "pro-democracy" protestors?

- In the case of Leung Kwok-hung, he has 16 prior convictions involving 27 charges. But Leung merely “obstructed, disturbed, interrupted or annoyed” 2,000+ people in a non-violent manner as part of the electoral process (if you can believe it), so he goes free under the proposed Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.

- If he did that during an American high school debate competition, he would have been beaten to death by the parents.

- Remember the Mariel boatlift? The American government kept saying that it is the beacon of freedom and democracy for all the suppressed people of Cuba. So the Cuban government announced that any Cuban who wanted to leave could do so by boat from the port of Mariel. Eventually almost 125,000 Cubans left in 1,700 boats which overwhelmed the US Coast Guard. At first, the American government felt elated at this shower of love. The situation changed when it was discovered the Cuban government had taken the opportunity to send away their hardened criminal-prisoners and mental asylum patients to America. Eventually, 2.2% of the Marielitos were classified as serious or violent criminals under U.S. law and denied citizenship.

As Emma Lazarus wrote:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

So please take our "Mental Patients" In The Umbrella Revolution too!

- PredictGov gave this prognosis for S.3469: Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2016.

So don't get your hopes too high!

- The bill died without ever reaching a vote. They will restart the process during the 2017/2018 term.

- A bit of history ... (New York Times) June 5, 1997.

... In a nonbinding resolution passed overwhelmingly this spring, Congress threatened to place huge sanctions against Hong Kong exports if China were to crack down on civil rights. Within days, that strategy was bitterly criticized by all sides in Hong Kong, from pro-Beijing executives to democracy advocates and Governor Chris Patten, who said it would "deprive Hong Kong of its livelihood at the moment it most needs support."

Since then, Congressional leaders have backed away from that strategy. But on Tuesday, Senator Jesse Helms, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, opened a new front: He introduced a resolution to deny China "most favored nation" trading status, an annual exercise that this year could turn into a tough fight. He linked the matter to China's handling of the succession.

Mr. Helms declared that it was foolish to treat Hong Kong as a separate entity if the Chinese will not, and argued that China has already reneged on many promises to keep Hong Kong's political freedoms. "Yet the United States has failed to prevent or reverse a single violation" of the 1984 accords on the handover, he said.

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin is expected to respond, telling American executives who have pressed for permanent trade status for China that revoking the trade status would "harm Hong King in the name of helping it."

- (SCMP) Hong Kong’s relations with China are no business of the US. By Alex Lo. February 20, 2017.

A proposed US bill to protect Hong Kong’s freedom and democracy does not even pass the laugh test. It aims ostensibly to shield the city from Beijing’s interference, and is drafted by three senators who clearly have difficulty understanding what “interference” means. Just imagine Richard Nixon feigning outrage at illegal wiretapping by foreign governments on their own citizens. Perhaps that’s why Beijing didn’t even bother to respond to it beyond a one-line statement.

Why is it America’s business to be concerned about cross-border relations in Hong Kong? Britain might be interested. It claims a moral obligation towards a former colony as well as possibly a treaty obligation, depending, of course, on how you interpret the Sino-British Joint Declaration. But the US? Look at it the other way.

Should Belgium be concerned about murderous and racist police across the US? Should Australia fret about the extraordinary legal system in the US that imprisons so many of its own citizens – usually of particular racial groups – and subjects them to inhumane treatment and substandard living conditions in jails, which are often run by private, for-profit corporations?

Seven of our police officers have been jailed for two years each – two years! – for roughing up a seasoned political provocateur. We have one of the lowest incarceration rates in the world. Hong Kong is as free as anywhere in the “free” world today. Sorry, Anson, Martin and Joshua; I know you disagree.

But of course, none of this matters to senators Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton and Ben Cardin, sponsors of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. It’s cynical anti-China posturing by some extremist politicians. How do these gentlemen define interference anyway?

On the question of rendition, Cotton thinks it’s perfectly fine for America to kidnap foreign nationals and let them rot in Guantanamo Bay. On “target killings”, or rather assassinations, he thinks Washington should expand its programme to murder foreign nationals – or even Americans – in other countries using drones and other types of bombing. He also wants to bomb Iran.

All three men are staunch supporters of Israel. This means they are perfectly fine with the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian land and the building of illegal settlements on it.

Interference? It’s a funny word. Last time I checked, Hong Kong was still Chinese territory.

- What are Senators Cotton, Rubio and Cardin so interested in a Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act? Because they need to keep themselves busy away from having to write the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) replacement bill (see Huffington Post).

- Wan Chin's Facebook, March 7, 2017.

- (SCMP) Yeah, right, let’s ask Donald Trump for help with Hong Kong’s human rights. By Yonden Lhatoo. April 6, 2017.

“Too simple, sometimes naive!” This infamous quote by former president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) became a catchphrase for Hong Kong back in 2000. He was ranting at the city’s young reporters after one of them got his goat with an inflammatory question.

Imagine Jiang now, if he were still in charge, updating that dismissive description to categorise our new generation of opposition politicians. “Total simpletons, seriously naive”, perhaps?

Take Joshua Wong Chi-fung, the student leader who made a name for himself at the forefront of the Occupy movement in 2014. He’s taken to calling on US President Donald Trump to scold President Xi Jinping (習近平) over human rights violations in Hong Kong.

That’s right. Young Joshua expects Trump, of all the people on this planet, to help Hong Kong achieve its democratic aspirations. I don’t know where to start. You’d get more sympathy for your broken Hello Kitty doll from Attila the Hun, or stand a better chance of putting a tutu on King Kong for a twinkle-toed pirouette performance.

Are these people aware there’s a real world beyond their Facebook and Instagram sandboxes? Are we talking about the same Donald Trump who is officially listed by Human Rights Watch as a threat to human rights? Who wants to revive the fine tradition of waterboarding to torture prisoners? Who has tried to slap an entry ban on Muslims? The first US president to openly admit that his own government is guilty of bloodshed?

It’s time for Wong and company to wake up and smell the coffee. Their tired old traditional icons of democracy have long passed their sell-by date. They need to find new role models and sources of inspiration to fight the good fight. But who and where? Look at what’s happening around the world, starting with the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Just last week, United Nations human rights investigators warned that Trump, with his intolerance for dissent, was seriously threatening Americans’ right to peaceful protest. In some states, lawmakers from the Republican Party are pushing for legislation to crack down on protesters who block traffic. Protesters like Wong.

In North Dakota, they’re seeking to make it OK for drivers to run over and kill demonstrators who get in the way – as long as it’s accidental. Someone tell that to our Occupy heroes, who were allowed to block roads with impunity for 79 straight days and still can’t see the wood for the trees.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index lists the US as a “flawed democracy” nowadays, but it’s not just America. All around the globe, multiple barometers point to democracy in decline. Countries that once embraced “freedom” are sliding into authoritarian rule. Growing disillusionment with democratic institutions and governments is breeding populist leaders who end up rolling back civil liberties.

The truth is, putting the entire democracy paradigm into context, the average Hongkonger is so free and fearless, so protected, so acutely aware of our rights, and so entitled to dissent that we often put advanced democracies to shame. Sure, we could do better, but to go crying to the US or UK for help – like they have any bandwidth to set us straight? There’s a fine line between blinkered ideology and buffoonery.

I’ve written in this space before that I don’t see why idealistic youngsters like Wong can’t be the future leaders of Hong Kong some day. But that is subject to a bit of growing up on their part. And the acquisition of basic knowledge and wisdom along the way.

Jiang may be irrelevant to Hong Kong these days, but so is Trump to improving human rights here.

- (EJ Insight) What’s behind Marco Rubio’s ‘sudden’ concern about Hong Kong? By Simon Shen. May 2, 2017.

In several of my previous articles, I mentioned that Marco Rubio, the Republican senator from Florida and incumbent chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) has in recent years emerged as Washington’s most vocal critic of the democratic progress in Hong Kong.

As far as the recent Hong Kong chief executive election is concerned, Rubio didn’t pull any punches either.

Just a day after Carrie Lam was elected chief executive, Rubio issued a statement lambasting Beijing for “having apparently interfered in the election in order to manipulate its result”, saying the election was another unmistakable proof that Beijing has been systematically eroding the autonomy of Hong Kong.

He also said that the small-circle CE election was obviously against the commonly shared aspirations for democracy and universal suffrage among the vast majority of Hong Kong people, and such aspirations were clearly demonstrated during the Umbrella Movement in 2014.

Rubio then went on to urge Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam to answer the wishes of her people and accelerate the democratization process of Hong Kong after she takes office in July in accordance with the democratic spirit and respect for the rule of law .

By comparison, the comments made by his partymate and co-chairman of the CECC Christopher Smith on the recent Hong Kong CE election obviously carried a lot more solid and explicit political message which both Beijing and the HKSAR government cannot afford to ignore.

Smith referred to Carrie Lam as “just another figurehead handpicked by Beijing like her predecessor Leung Chun-ying”.

The fact that Lam was put in charge of the city against the common wishes of its people would only further undermine the autonomy and rule of law in Hong Kong, he said.

In particular, Smith pointed out that whether Hong Kong can continue to fulfill its role successfully as a bridge between China and the West depends largely on the degree to which freedom and civil rights are kept intact.

He warned that the day Hong Kong loses its unique character and becomes just another Chinese city would be the day Washington has to review the “US-Hong Kong Policy Act” and seriously consider whether Hong Kong should continue to enjoy the special treatment promised under the act.

The growing concerns among US congressmen about the democratization process in Hong Kong raise an interesting question: why have mainstream politicians in Washington suddenly become interested in our affairs when most of them have been indifferent over the years?

Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the US presidential election last year raised the political awareness and enthusiasm among tens of millions of older and predominantly white voters in the US, thereby leading to a shift in the political agenda in Washington.

According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, older Americans have become increasingly concerned about the human rights record and democratization process in China.

Among Americans aged over 50, as many as 53 percent think China’s poor human rights record is posing an enormous challenge to relations between Washington and Beijing compared with 38 percent among voters aged between 18 and 29.

And that can probably explain why Republican lawmakers such as Rubio have become suddenly keen to play the “Hong Kong card” and weigh in on the city’s affairs because they too must have noticed that there has been a growing concern among older white voters, the traditional support base of the GOP, about the overall human rights conditions and democratic progress in China.

As part of China, Hong Kong has automatically become a cause for concern among these senior voters, too. And it goes without saying that politicians in Washington always care about what their constituents think.

As one of the most promising young politicians in Washington eyeing higher public office, Rubio is expected to become increasingly vocal about China’s human rights conditions and democratic progress in the days ahead, and the political affairs of Hong Kong are apparently among the issues Rubio is determined to milk for all they are worth in order to boost his own popularity.

As such, Rubio’s office on Capitol Hill is likely to be a part of the itinerary of whoever from the Hong Kong pro-democracy camp is visiting Washington in the coming days.

(Wen Wei Po) (Wen Wei Po) November 18, 2016.

Two nights ago, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were interviewed on FTV (Taiwan).

Q: "An even greater price will have to be paid for Hong Kong self-determination or independence, including even shedding blood or sacrificing lives. Are you willing?"

Leung answered: "I am willing to pay more to protect my homeland Hong Kong."

Yau answered, "If there has to be a first person to shed blood in exchange for Hong Kong democracy and the right for self-determination for the people of Hong Kong, I am willing to be that first person."

While Leung and Yau said that they are willing to sacrifice for Hong Kong, their bodies are more honest. In the earlier anti-Interpretation demonstration, Demosisto, Labour Party and League of Social Democrats charged at the China Liaison Office while Leung-Yau's Youngspiration offered "support." On that night, Yau Wai-ching wore elaborate make-up, light blue short-sleeve skirt and black long skirt. How was she going to lead the charge at the China Liaison Office? When the charge began, the police led her to the safe "demonstration zone" where she fiddled with her mobile phone.

On that same night, Leung Chung-hang told that press that he was willing to give up his life in order to make sure that the last man got out. But as soon as the police moved in for the clearance, he turned around and ran faster than any of his supporters. Before the police had cleared the site, Leung had left in a taxi.

Internet comments:

- First person to shed blood? Has nobody ever shed a drop of blood in the fight for democracy in Hong Kong?

- On November 6, Leung and Yau led a group of resisters right into the police trap in front of the China Liaison Office in Sai Wan. Apart from doing media interviews and photo shoots, did they shed a drop of blood? As soon as the Evil Police started to crack down, the two fled. Leung even abandoned the resisters by grabbing a taxi! If you two want to shed blood, do so yourself instead of leaving it to other warriors!

- Talk is cheap, and I can do it just as well. I am willing to shed the first drop of blood too. I am willing to sacrifice my life too.

- Ms. Yau, why not explain to us the meaning behind your "First Blood"? And "Armed Revolution"? And "Dying In Order To Demonstrate Your Resolve"? Actually don't bother with explanations -- Please JUST DO IT!

- (SCMP) Michael Chugani. April 9, 2016. Now that civil disobedience has flopped, dare our independence fighters raise the stakes to armed revolt? They have shown they don’t fear the local police, but what match are they against the might of the People’s Liberation Army? As Lennon said all those years ago, show us the plan if you want a revolution. There isn’t one. Our young revolutionaries are no doubt better at capturing Pikachu than PLA soldiers.

- (Passion Times) Chin Wan Kan's speech at Tseung Kwan O election rally. By Chin Wan Kan. August 18, 2016.

We are faced with two paths in our quest to become the ruling party in Hong Kong: armed revolution on the one hand, or breaking into the Legislative Council on the other hand. Let’s look at the first option. Armed revolution is entirely possible in Hong Kong and can be organised very quickly, and I’m not joking. However, a political leader that emerges from armed conflict is not normally a hot-blooded youngster or an idealist; he is usually someone who has chosen to connive with foreign powers to obtain their support and will have already secured their protection from outside Hong Kong. These armed fighters will use sophisticated methods to bring down the government in Hong Kong or the mastermind behind it, Beijing, causing regime change.

Since their support and protection come from a foreign source, it is to be expected that after their success, the rebels would only be able to form a puppet government, and would then proceed to suppress the people around them, including those hotheaded fighters who had risked their lives for them in the first place. Do not think that armed revolution is very hard to bring about. In Hong Kong, with a weakening China and the return of the US to the Asian region, people with enough intelligence will be able to exploit the situation to make it happen. Unfortunately, the government that comes about afterwards will be a bad one. Furthermore, Hong Kong’s existence relies on its status as an international centre of finance and business services. An armed revolution and regime change would cause such a seismic shock that many people here would lose their livelihoods and everything they own. Thereafter, they would etch out a slavish existence, entirely at the revolutionary government’s beck and call.

- (Polymer HK) On Building An Army In Hong Kong.

Counsel Lawrence YK Ma had previously said that it is impossible for Hong Kong to gain independence because it does not even have an army. This is a  false issue -- just because Hong Kong does not have an army doesn't mean that it cannot have an army some day. The point is not whether Hong Kong has an army now; the point is whether Hong Kong has the ability to raise an army. The fact is: Any region with a large enough population can build an army if it is willing to do so.

YK Ma spouts his nonsense probably because he thinks that an army is a professional force that has the same array of equipment as the American army. But according to the Geneva Convention, an army only has to satisfy the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Once we recognize that building an army does not require building another American army, things become much simpler. During the initial stage of nation-building in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Army can simply be a defensive militia, with full-time commanders, officers and clerical workers as the core. The soldiers receive training during normal times and are only mobilized for battles. There will be a unified supreme command (in the form of the Ministry of Defense of the Hong Kong Nation). The army only needs to wear uniforms that distinguish them from civilians, and they move around in normal/modified vehicles and helicopters painted with distinctive signs. They will carry mainly light weapons. And voila! We have our Hong Kong Army already.

It is clearly very easy to raise such an army. But the problem is whether such an army will succeed in its mission. The overall national defense strategy dictates what kind of army is required. This is also related to the timing of when this army is raised. At this moment, it is quite clear that Hong Kong is overshadowed by the overwhelming superiority of the Chinese garrison here, so that it would be very hard to raise its own army. Therefore, the best moment is when the Chinese garrison is withdrawn or loses its combat capabilities for whatever reasons.

Recently, the Chinese economy is in recession with all sorts of internal and external tensions. People everywhere are talking about the "Chinese meltdown". This article will not discuss the possibility and timing of this "Chinese meltdown." But if and when China melts down, there will be two major effects on Hong Kong:

1. Most of the soldiers in the Chinese garrison in Hong Kong will be called back to the Southern Military District to deal with the civil wars, rebellions, riots and other chaos in China.

2. A large number of refugees will rush from China to safe havens outside China, including Hong Kong.

When both of these things happen, it will be the ideal time for Hong Kong to go independent and build its own army during the vacuum. At the same time, the mission of the Hong Kong Army is fairly clear: to defend the border and prevent refugees from entering Hong Kong. When China melts down, the main external threat to Hong Kong are the refugees and bandits from China, and not the People's Liberation Army which are preoccupied with internecine fighting. To deal with these threats, what we need is a large number of people involved in border control, refugee internment and coping with low-intensity conflicts. This is why we want a large semi-professional low-technology army.

Of course, the two major effects above are based upon conjectures, with the first one particularly being debatable. Hong Kong is the place where the various Communist Party and military leaders hoard their money, so they may not give up Hong Kong so easily. It is uncertain whether the Chinese garrison in Hong Kong will be withdrawn, or whether they will launch a coup to take over the golden goose known as Hong Kong. No matter what, these two major effects will be the starting point of our discussion here.

The Chinese garrison in Hong Kong does not have any Hongkongers. It consists of soldiers and officers who come from all over China. Based upon what we saw during the Umbrella Revolution, they can't even communicate with locals without the use of interpreters. But unlike the Hong Kong-based British soldiers who had nowhere to retreat to during WW II, the Chinese garrison can always retreat back to the mainland. So when China starts a war with foreign country, or if their hometowns fall into chaos when China melts down, will they really stay in Hong Kong?

Now let us describe in detail how the Hong Kong Army will be formed.

The army officers and soldiers will come from two sources. The first way is to draw from the Hong Kong Disciplinary Services. The most direct way is to select certain members of the paramilitary Police Tactical Unit (PTU) and Emergency Unit and use them to form the backbone of the army. But right now the police are being turned into Public Security Bureau functionaries with low combat capabilities. When the China meltdown occurs, they may also sustain severe casualties and unable to provide enough personnel. The second way is to hire military advisors or Private Military Contractors (PMC) from overseas to train and command local soldiers. The PMC's have trained local soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq and other combat zones. In the long run, we should sent local Hongkongers with good potential to receive training in foreign military academies. Of course, such training will take many years and will not solve the immediate problems. Therefore only the first two ways are viable in the short run.

Hong Kong has a population of more than 7 million, more than that of Israel. Therefore Hong Kong can mobilize even more people than Israel. Like Israel, Hong Kong has more women than men. So Hong Kong can conscript its women during war times. In modern warfare, female soldiers are used mostly in support roles. But looking at examples such as Russia during WW II, Israel, China and North Korea, female soldiers can serve just as well fighting in the frontlines.

Because international regulations and controls are lax, it is easy to purchase light weapons from overseas. At the least, it will be a lot easier than purchasing tanks and other heavy weapons. Don't tell me "that nobody dares to offend China by selling weapons and munitions to Hong Kong." First of all, these are light weapons, not cannons and airplanes. It is easy to transact. Secondly, how many nations has China offended? When an armed force intent on resisting China wants to buy several thousand AK's, RPG's and recoilless mortars, are you sure that Vietnam or Indonesia won't sell?

In truth, if the Chinese garrison stays in Hong Kong, their main armored vehicle is the 92 Infantry Vehicle and they don't have any tanks. In street fighting, such armored personnel carriers can be destroyed by RPG's and other light weapons. Another threat is the Wuzhuang Zhishengji 9 attack helicopter. Helicopters can be counter-attacked effectively with heavy-caliber light weapons. MANPAD's (Man-portable air-defense systems firing shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles) cannot be easily purchased on the market. But remember: aircrafts cannot stay in the air forever, especially the Wuzhuang Zhishengji 9 attack helicopters which carry only a small number of air-to-ground missiles.

Therefore, who is to say that we can't build an army? But it is one thing to build an army; it is something else for this army to be sustainable. The above army is the one that is required in a hurry when China melts down. As the needs in national defense change, the militia will have be gradually turned into a professional army. This is further down the road. For now I want to talk about an subject that would be essential for any army: armaments factories.

YK Ma tried to scare us with the amount of money that Singapore spends on national defense. In reality, the national defense budget for Hong Kong will be even higher, because Singapore only needs to keep what it already has going whereas Hong Kong will have to start from scratch. It takes a long time to build an armaments factory and then bring it into operation. As soon as the nation is founded, budget must be allocated and construction starts immediately. The initial goals are to produce and maintain the essentials, such as weapon spare parts and munitions. There is no need to build cannons and airplanes as yet. Hong Kong can purchase munitions from overseas. At least a few hundred thousands bullets may be fired in a single firefight, so Hong Kong probably can't buy fast enough to replenish what it has used up. Therefore a local armaments/munitions factory will be essential.

In any discussion of systems to support light weapons, we must consider what kind of light weapons are available on hand. The most common handgun in Hong Kong is the 0.38 Smith & Wesson revolver that only sergeants or higher ranked police officers were allowed to carry during the Umbrella Revolution. The police also possess a certain number of 9mm automatic pistols. In actual combat, it is preferable to have rifles, sub-machine guns or more powerful guns. The Hong Kong police have a small number of 9mm sub-machine guns and 0.556mm-calibre rifles. But the largest number will be the 5.8mm 95 Model automatic rifles of the Chinese garrison in Hong Kong. In addition, some citizens and the police have 12-gauge shotguns. The Hong Kong Marine Police have a number of 0.50-caliber machine guns (which cannot use Russian 12.7mm bullets). The Chinese Garrison also has 7.62mm, 12.7mm or large caliber automatic weapons plus mortars of various calibers.

We see that there are many different kinds of guns in Hong Kong. This will make it harder to support all these different systems at the same time. The military can only invest support certain common weapons. The 5.56mm AR-15 series require precise equipment and metallurgic skills to support, and even Taiwan gave up production during the Vietnam War era. AR-15 production requires the factory to procure permits and schemes from the manufacturer. The only common weapon that does not require a license is the Model 95, but its 5.8mm bullets are produced by China only and it is unlikely that Hong Kong can acquire the production specs.

During the early stage of national building, Hong Kong may not have a full production line to produce ammunition. They will have to procure the production equipment and raw materials from outside. Even the Chinese Communists can only make the bullet heads and shells for its 7.62mm Model 56 rifle bullets, and the propellant and the centerfire are supplied by outside specialist factories. So it is more likely that our local factory will be placing new bullet heads and propellants into used bullet shells. This is appropriate for the Hong Kong Army which does not have enough ammunition.

In summary, when Hong Kong becomes independent, we should establish an army via conscription to stave off the tide of refugees from the north and to quickly develop an armaments industry that can support the available light weapons. The road to building a military will be long and arduous, but it won't be impossible as YK Ma and his ilk say. This essay has been offered for further thoughts by the warriors of independence.

- (China Daily Asia) 'HK independence' simply a fantasy. By Lawrence Y.K. Ma. March 25, 2016.

... Even if Hong Kong can form its "own" government, supported by its "own" constitution, it won't be able defend itself. Singapore appropriated $9.5 billion for its defense in 2015. Assuming Hong Kong resembles Singapore in some ways, each Hong Kong resident would have to shoulder an extra tax burden of about HK$10,000 per year.

Furthermore, even if Hong Kong can buy enough aircraft and warships, it cannot buy its own soldiers, who must be recruited and trained locally. Are Hong Kong university students all willing to be conscripted, trained and ready to risk their lives to defend a "Hong Kong state" against the People's Liberation Army (PLA)? On the mainland, there are around 2.3 million active personnel in the armed forces, whereas, according to official figures, there were only 87,600 university students in Hong Kong in the 2014-2015 academic year. Do your math -- that is 1:26 -- and you will now realize that it is an unwinnable battle. The PLA is legally authorized by the Constitution to defend the nation; its personnel are professionally trained -- and duty bound -- to put down any secessionist campaign. In short, they can and will crack down on any illegal government anywhere in China at any time.

- "Based upon what we saw [of the Chinese garrison] during the Umbrella Revolution ..." No, the Chinese soldiers were deliberately kept invisible at all times so that you saw nothing. They don't get days off to cruise Lan Kwai Fong and start fights with other drunkards. So you saw nothing of them.

- "In truth, if the Chinese garrison stays in Hong Kong, their main armored vehicle is the 92 Infantry Vehicle and they don't have any tanks." The reason why the Chinese garrison hasn't been driving around in tanks is that the sight scares certain Hong Kong people. It doesn't mean that they can't bring in the tanks. There are many ways for tanks to cross from mainland China into Hong Kong, if necessary. Even if you blow up the airports, bridges, tunnels and roads, the tanks can still be ferried over by transport helicopters. For example, at the Wanchai Sports Ground.

- This essay begins with "This is a false issue -- just because Hong Kong does not have an army doesn't mean that it cannot have an army some day." In like manner, the Chinese tank issue is a false issue -- just because the Chinese garrison has not driven around Central and Mong Kok in tanks does not mean that they don't have tanks.

- In like manner, New Yorkers have never seen tanks driven through their streets. But that doesn't mean that the American army does not have tanks.

- "Helicopters can be counter-attacked effectively with heavy-caliber light weapons. But remember: aircrafts cannot stay in the air forever, especially the Wuzhuang Zhishengji 9 attack helicopters which carry only a small number of air-to-ground missiles." Hey, have you heard of barrel bombs dropped by helicopters in Syria (see YouTube)? It only costs HK$1,000-2,000 to produce a barrel bomb because the ingredients (fertilizer, fuel oil, nuts, bolts, steel balls, marbles) are so cheap. And you can't see or hear the helicopters at 10,000 ft altitude, much less than shoot them down with your light weapons. All you hear is the BIG BANG, by which time it will be too late.

- All this talk about building this armaments factory that will supply the weapon spare parts and munitions for the Hong Kong Army is a waste of time. The Chinese Communists will be monitoring the developments, including when the propellants and other raw materials are delivered. Twenty-four hours before the factory goes online, a Chinese cruise missile costing a total of 400,000 RMB slams onto the site and destroys this HK$10 billion project in toto. Before you build this factory, please consider buying a Patriot system, even a THAAD system, first.

- Ditto with your desalination plants. Is it a crime against humanity to destroy a desalination plant? Yes, according to Article 54 of Protocol I of the 1997 Geneva Conventions. But the Chinese Communists will also produce 'evidence' that this destroyed facility was in fact a biochemical weapons factory. So, the answer becomes No.

- The Chinese Communists don't even have to waste a cruise missile. Even if you build the armaments factory in Hong Kong Island south as far away as possible from mainland China (40km), it is still reachable by the Chinese long-range artillery guns. Patriot and THAAD won't help you against an artillery barrage.

- (Global Security) The Chinese W90 type 203mm howitzer has a muzzle velocity of 933 m/s, rate of fire 1-2 rounds/minute. The launched projectile weight and range are: "bottom concave bomb" [base bleed projectile], weighed 95.9 kg, with a maximum range of 40 kilometers. If fired from Shenzhen, the projectile can reach Stanley on Hong Kong Island south.

Meanwhile China's has Type WS-2 300-mm rocket launchers with a range of 200 km. A barrage of rockets can be launched from a battery located somewhere in the semi-circle of Jiangmen, Guangzhou, Weizhou and Shanwei and hit Hong Kong with relatively high accuracy and density within seconds of launch. No THAAD/Patriot system can stop that. You need to have the ability to track these mobile launchers and destroy them with stealth bombers/cruise missiles before they can launch.

Reference: Stalin's accordion.

- The idea of conscripting all Kong girls aged 18 to 40 into the Hong Kong Army in the Great Battle to Defend Hong Kong Against Chinese Refugees is too funny!

- Can they bring their Filipina/Indonesian domestic helpers with them? They don't even know how to fold their bed sheets themselves!

- Like it or not, military service will be compulsory. Of course, there will be refuseniks and they will be too numerous to incarcerate (How do you house and feed 100,000 people?). So there will be DESERTION = DEATH signs posted everywhere in Hong Kong.

Even if they show up to report in, there will be disciplinary problems with the Kong girls. So there will be DISOBEDIENCE = DEATH signs posted everywhere in the training camps.

- You can get rid of some of the hardcore refuseniks by having a grace period. The Border Guards are shooting anyone who tries to cross the border from China to Hong Kong. For a one week period, people will be allowed to cross the border from Hong Kong to China. After one week, the border becomes a shoot-on-sight free-fire zone. This purges all the vermin unwilling to serve in the Hong Kong Army. What remains will be strong and valiant warriors.

- Pssst, have you estimated how many people will be left?

- The Chinese Communists will also help the Great Evacuation by saying that after that week, anyone left in Hong Kong will be rebel vermin traitors who are doomed to extermination by massive bombing. Just to demonstrate the point, a MOAB will be dropped on the Wanchai Convention Centre at 12 noon on Day 1 of the Great Evacuation Week. Everybody will stay away from the one-mile blast radius, and television will show the explosion endlessly for the message to get through.

- This essay is typical of the stage of development for the theory and practice of Hong Kong independence -- everything hinges on the assumption of the China meltdown! In the interregnum, we will all just sit around, twiddle our thumbs and talk about how we can best prepare ourselves for that eventuality.

- Go read Horace: "carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero" (Seize the day, put very little trust in tomorrow). You should not believe that everything will fall into place tomorrow, but rather you should do everything possible today to make tomorrow better.

- Someone ought to figure out the detailed costs involved in building a military. For example, here is a sample quote from the Canadian arms dealer Dolorian (link):

A Kalashnikov AKM assault rifle costs only US$264.40 each if you order 5,000 of them. Each 7.62x39mm cartridge costs only US$0.29 apiece. If we actually purchased this list, the total cost of US$14,366,600 works out to only about US$2 per capita. So the people of Hong Kong can easily afford this.

- This is not an one-time-only expense and this is just your side. The battle will be fought in Hong Kong, because the Hong Kong Army is in no position to bring the war to the enemy (in Shanghai or Beijing). This is a defensive war against an invading army which has heavy weapons. The cost to Hong Kong should include the collateral damage to lives and properties in Hong Kong. The ammunition listed above is good only for a few days of small arms fire fights in Hong Kong. Please imagine what Admiralty will look like after two million rounds are fired by both sides over two days, plus the artillery barrages, cruise missiles and drone strikes by China.

If you use DSHK anti-aircraft machine guns at inbound bombers, you are going to shoot up a lot of people and homes in Hong Kong.

- Related Link: Hong Kong Independence - Theory and Praxis

Court of First Instance, The Higher Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Constitutional and Administrative Law List, No. 185 of 2016 and Miscellaneous Proceedings No. 2819 of 2016

Decisions:

HCMP 2819/2016

(1) A declaration that the oaths purportedly taken by Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau on 12 October 2016 contravened the Basic Law and the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance and are invalid and void and have no legal effect;

(2) A declaration that Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau have been disqualified from assuming and have vacated the office of a  member of the LegCo since 12 October 2016 and are not entitled to act as a member of the LegCo;

(3) An injunction restraining Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau from acting as a member of the LegCo

(4) A declaration that Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau claimed to act and/or acted as a member of the LegCo while disqualified from acting in that office; and

(5) An injunction restraining Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau from claiming to be entitled and/or acting as a member of the LegCo.

HCAL 185/2016

(1) A declaration that the President has no power to re-administer or allow for re-administration of any further oath(s) to be taken by Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau;

(2) A declaration that the office of member of the LegCo previously occupied by each of Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau is now vacant;

(3) An order of certiorari to quash the President’s decision (namely to allow Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau to retake the LegCo Oath at the next LegCo meeting); and

(4) An injunction restraining the President from administering or allowing to be administered the making of the oaths of Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau.

SUMMARY:

1.  These proceedings concern the questions (a) whether the oaths purportedly taken by Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau at the LegCo meeting on 12 October 2016 before the Clerk to the LegCo (“the Clerk”) contravene the requirements under Art. 104 of the Basic Law (“BL104”) and/or the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (“ODO”), and (b) if so, whether they shall be regarded as having vacated their respective office (“the Office”) of a LegCo member as a matter of law.

2.  BL104 constitutionally mandates, among others, an elected LegCo member when assuming his office to take an oath in accordance with the laws under the ODO (a) to swear to uphold the Basic Law and (b) to swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

3.  Sections 16 and 19 of the ODO further require that a LegCo member elect must take the Legislative Council Oath (“the LegCo Oath”) which is in the form prescribed under the ODO.  Section 21 of the ODO further relevantly provides that if a LegCo member who “declines or neglects” to take the LegCo Oath when requested to do so shall vacate the Office (if he has already entered on it); or shall be disqualified from entering on it (if he has not yet entered on it).

4.  There is no dispute among the parties that, on 12 October 2016, Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau purported to take the oath in the following ways and manners:

(a) Each of them used the term “Hong Kong nation” at the outset of the oath-taking;

(b) After the interjection by the Clerk, each of them mispronounced the word “China” as “Geen-na” or “Sheen-na” (“支那”);

(c) Ms. Yau mis-pronounced “People’s Republic of China” as “the People’s Refucking of Sheen-na”;

(d) Each of them unfolded and displayed a blue banner bearing the words “HONG KONG IS NOT CHINA”;

(e) Mr. Leung displayed dismissive and not-serious tone in taking the oath after the Clerk’s interjection and crossed his index and middle finger of his right hand over the Bible; and

(f) Ms. Yau emphasized “Hong Kong” with a distinctly loud tone of voice but adopted a lower voice and hurried manner for the rest of the oath.

5.  The Court notes that Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau have not put forward any positive case by way of submissions or evidence that the oaths they purportedly took on 12 October 2016 complied with BL104 or the requirements under the ODO.  Nor have they put forward any positive case by way of submissions or evidence that their above conducts did not amount to declining or neglecting to take the LegCo Oath under BL104 or the ODO.

6.  Instead, Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau oppose the application on the principal grounds that the court could or should not intervene in the matters now under challenged in light of: (1) the non-intervention principle; and (2) the LegCo member’s immunity provided under Article 77 of the Basic Law (“BL77”) and sections 3 and 4 of the Legislative Council (Power and Privilege Ordinance (Cap 382) (“LCPPO”). So far as the President is concerned, his only objection is that he should not be joined as a party in these proceedings.

7.  On 7 November 2016, in exercise of its power under Article 158 of the Basic Law (“BL158”) the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPCSC”) pronounced an interpretation of the meaning of BL104 (“the Interpretation”).  The Interpretation is binding on all Hong Kong courts and the courts should give effect to it.

8.  Relevant for the present purposes, the meaning of BL104 under the Interpretation essentially provides that an elected LegCo member when assuming office must take the LegCo Oath as prescribed under the ODO (being the laws of HKSAR) solemnly and sincerely and in compliance with it both in substance and in form.  If he intentionally declines to so take the LegCo Oath, whether in form or in substance, the oath taken is invalid and he shall be disqualified from assuming the Office.

9.  On the other hand, the Court also accepts CE/SJ’s submissions that the laws of Hong Kong as set out in relevant provisions of the ODO, when properly construed independent of the Interpretation, carry effectively the same meanings and legal effects as those of the above meaning of BL104.  

10.  Adopting a purposive construction and common law, the Court holds that sections 16, 19 and 21 of the ODO have the following meanings and effects:

(a) These relevant provisions in the ODO reflect and underline the requirements under BL104;

(b) A LegCo member must take the oath as soon as possible after being elected and before his assumption of office;

(c) A LegCo member must take the oath in the same form, manner and substance of the LegCo Oath as prescribed under the ODO;

(d) An oath must be taken solemnly and sincerely and is a form of attestation by which a person signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully.  An oath of allegiance or loyalty means that a person promises and binds himself to bear true allegiance to a particular sovereign and government and to support its constitution.  In determining the validity of the taking of an oath, the essential question to be answered is whether it can be seen objectively that the person taking the oath faithfully and truthfully commits himself or herself to uphold and abide by the obligations set out in the oath.

(e) For the purposes of the ODO, the word “decline” means an intentional act to refuse or object to the taking of the oath as prescribed by law; and the word “neglect” means a deliberate or willful (in contrast to an inadvertent or accidental) omission to perform the duty to take the oath as prescribed.

(f) If a LegCo member “declines or neglects” to take the LegCo Oath whether in form or in substance, by the operation of law, he must (“shall”) be regarded as having vacated his office if he has entered upon it, or be disqualified from entering his office if he has not done so.

11.  The Court agrees with the CE/SJ that the undisputed and unchallenged evidence in the present cases shows that (a) Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau had been requested to take the LegCo Oath on 12 October 2016, (b) the manner and way in which they purported to take the oaths show objectively and clearly that they did not truthfully and faithfully intend to commit themselves to uphold and abide by the two obligations under the LegCo Oath and BL104, as they objectively clearly did not recognize the principle of “one country, two systems” and the importance of “one country” under that principle, which (as well recognized by the Court of Final Appeal) is the foundation for the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the People’s Republic of China and of the Hong Kong’s constitutional model under the Basic Law.

12.  In the premises, Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau therefore objectively manifested a clear conduct to refuse (thus “decline”) to take the LegCo Oath, whether in form or in substance, as required under BL104 and the ODO.   It is again noted that neither Mr. Leung nor Ms. Yau has suggested otherwise by way of submissions or evidence. 

13.  In such circumstances, s.21 of ODO should apply and operate as a matter of law to disqualify Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau from continuing to be a LegCo member.

14.  The Court rejects the opposition ground based on the non-intervention principle.  The principle has its origin in common law based on the doctrine of separation of powers as practised in England, where there is the principle of Parliamentary supremacy and the absence of a written constitution.  The extent and limit of this principle’s application in another jurisdiction must be subject to and considered in the context of that other jurisdiction, in particular where there is a written constitution.

15.  In Hong Kong, there is a written mini-constitution of the Basic Law and the Basic Law is supreme instead of the legislature (see: Cheng Kar Shun v. Li Fung Ying).  The scope and limit of the non-intervention principle as applied in Hong Kong has since been laid down by the CFA in Leung Kwok Hung v. The President of the Legislative Council (No. 1). Deriving from the CFA’s judgment: (1) the principle of non-intervention as applied in Hong Kong is necessarily subject to the constitutional requirements of the Basic Law; (2) where the Basic Law confers law-making powers and functions on the legislature, the court has powers to determine whether the legislature has a particular power, privilege or immunity; and (3) what can be properly regarded as the “internal business” or “internal process” of the LegCo must be viewed under the above caveat.

16.  Applying the above principles, the non-intervention principle as applied in Hong Kong therefore does not prohibit the court from determining the questions of (a) whether an oath taken by the LegCo member complies with the important constitutional requirements under BL104 (and hence also the legal requirements under the ODO), and (b) whether, in failing to so comply with these constitutional and legal requirements, the LegCo member shall be disqualified from the Office under BL104 and/or section 21 of the ODO.   

17.  In this respect, neither sections 19 and 21 of the ODO nor paragraph (4) of the Interpretation provides expressly that the decision of those administering the oath as to whether an oath is in compliance with BL104 and the laws of Hong Kong is final. Accordingly, although the Clerk or the President has an incidental duty and power to determine whether the oath taken is in compliance with the law as and when circumstances practically require, the Court holds that it does have power to finally adjudicate the matters under challenged in the present cases.

18.  The court also rejects the ground based on LegCo members’ immunity.  The Court holds that, on proper construction, the protection provided under BL77 and sections 3 and 4 of the LCPPO only covers statements and speeches made by a LegCo member in the course of official debate on the floor of the LegCo when exercising his powers and discharging his functions as a LegCo member.  The words expressed by a LegCo member in taking an oath cannot be properly regarded as falling within these meanings nor could they be regarded as expressed in the course of the exercise of a LegCo member’s power or carrying out his functions since he has not yet validly assumed the Office.

19.  The Court also holds alternatively that, in any event, the court must have jurisdiction as expressly granted by section 73 of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap 542) (“LCO”) to adjudicate the underlying question of whether a LegCo member has been disqualified when proceedings are brought under that provision against a person purporting to act as a LegCo member when disqualified.  The Court rejects Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau’s submissions that section 73 of the LCO does not intend to cover the circumstances where a member has been disqualified under section 21 of the ODO.

20.  The Court further holds that the decision of the President to allow Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau to re-administer the oath in substance and in effect implies that Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau did not decline or neglect to take the LegCo Oath on 12 October.  Hence, the decision of the President has a substantive effect and is amenable to judicial review and the President was properly joined as a party.

21.  As regards the locus of CE, the Court holds that, since under Article 48 of the Basic Law, the CE has the constitutional responsibility for the implementation of the Basic Law and other laws in Hong Kong, the CE therefore does have locus to bring either the judicial review or HCMP 2819/2016.  On the other hand, in so far as proceedings concerning section 73 of the LCO are concerned, the Court accepts that the CE in his capacity as the CE has no locus to bring such proceedings against Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau.  However, this does not materially affect these proceedings, as the SJ as one of the plaintiffs is a proper party to bring the section 73 proceedings.

22.  Finally, Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau contend that the Court is not bound by the Interpretation since, properly construed under common law, the Interpretation amounts to amendments of BL104 instead of an interpretation as understood under BL158. The Court does not find this submission to be relevant to the present cases as it agrees with the submissions of CE/SJ that, with or without the Interpretation, the Court would reach the same above conclusion. The Court therefore does not see the need to determine on this question.

23.  Upon the President’s request, the Court further clarifies that Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau have vacated their office since 12 October 2016.

Link: Full Statement of the High Court

(SCMP) November 15, 2016.

Hong Kong plunged deeper into political uncertainty after the city’s High Court ruled on Tuesday that two newly elected localist lawmakers should lose their seats over the way they took their oaths last month.

In his judgment on the government’s unprecedented bid to have Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching disqualified, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung said their conduct during the October 12 swearing-in ceremony meant they had declined to take their oaths and must therefore vacate their seats.

The judge also ruled that Legislative Council president Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen had no power to arrange a second oath-taking for the pair, adding that he arrived at his conclusion independent of the national legislature’s interpretation of the Basic Law last week. “The court ... agrees with the submissions of the chief executive and secretary for justice that, with or without the interpretation, the court would reach the same above conclusion.”

The judge, adopting a common law approach to the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, said an oath must be taken solemnly and sincerely and that oath takers are “bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully”.

He agreed with the government’s view that Leung and Yau “did not truthfully and faithfully intend to commit themselves to uphold and abide by the two obligations” under the oath, as they “objectively clearly” did not recognise the principle of “one country, two systems” and the importance of “one country”.

Au addressed the localists’ argument that the court could not in this case intervene in legislative matters. He drew a distinction from the UK, where he said the principle of parliamentary supremacy reigns and no written constitution exists. In Hong Kong, he said, the Basic Law is “supreme” instead of the legislature.

After the judgment, Baggio Leung pledged to appeal the court’s decision, which he said would affect Hong Kong for decades. “I was calmer than I expected,” he said of hearing the judgment. “I’ll soon discuss possible legal actions with my lawyers.” Leung added he was not fighting for his Legislative Council seat but for the city and that he did not regret what he had done.

Yau said she and Leung had been democratically elected. “If the court could strip us of our qualification, we all know what kind of society we live in now,” she said. She believed Beijing’s interpretation had heaped pressure on the court.

Yau said she and Leung would announce their next move at 7pm Tuesday at Legco, where an injunction bars them from acting as lawmakers.

Asked if he had disappointed the some 30,000 people who voted for him, Leung said he had never expected Beijing to intervene in the matter. He argued the government would use all means to disqualify him even if he did not alter his oath. “Do people want us two lawmakers to do our jobs smoothly for four years but make compromises, or insist on what we advocated during our campaigns?” he asked.

Leung said the judgment would cause many who advocated self-determination for Hong Kong to rethink their future plans. “We have been trying hard to deliver our message through electioneering, but can we still do the same in future?” he asked. “The returning officers and Legco secretary general exhausted all means to block us.”

The court in its judgment said that although the Legco clerk or its president had an “incidental” duty and power to determine whether one complied with the law, that person did not have a final say. Instead, the court had the authority to “finally” adjudicate the matter. It added the duo vacated their office from October 12, the day they took their oaths.

Internet comments:

- Wong On-yin's Facebook


Yau Wai-ching gave the perfect performance. I predict that there will not be any Basic Law interpretation. The court will decide that Andrew Leung has the right to supervise the oaths for Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, even though the two had "neglected" to take the oath on October 12, so did Lau Siu-lai. Today, Andrew Leung supervised Lau Siu-lai's to retake her oath. There should not be two sets of standards for negligence. The government's urgent judicial review asserts that Andrew Leung does not have the right to supervise the re-taking of oaths that were neglected at first. As for the violation of the Basic Law, that can wait for another hearing later on.

- Once again, Wong On-yin is right on the mark ... NOT!

- (Ming Pao) November 15, 2016. On Commercial Radio this morning, Hong Kong University School of Law Associate Professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting said that it is more likely that the government will lose the judicial review to be announced at 330pm. Tai said that there were prior cases in which the courts have refused to intervene with Legislative Council affairs. Tai said that the key will be Legislative Council president Andrew Leung. If Leung changes his mind, there will be another round of judicial reviews and more than a dozen legislators will be affected. Tai does not think that Leung wants more than a dozen legislators to be disqualified.

- When a legal scholar is so wrong, the only explanation is that he doesn't know the facts or his reasoning is flawed.

- Benny Tai also said that the court should have refused to accept this case. Under separation of powers, the judiciary should not interfere with the internal affairs of the Legislative Council. Now if that was what the court says, it will only draw the National People's Congress Standing Committee to issue another interpretation to the effect that there is no separation of powers in the Basic Law because the executive branch rules. The biggest losers will be the judicial and legislative branches. Thankfully, the judicial branch isn't so stupid.

- (Oriental Daily) As soon as the High Court issued its ruling at 330pm, Legislative Council administrative staff took down the name plates of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching.

Previously, thirteen of their office workers were banned from the building because of a melee in which six security guards were injured.


Leung Chung-hang's office
(Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey HK$308; Glenfiddich 18 HK$1080)


Yau Wai-ching's office

- Leung Chung-hang explained to the media that he has been under tremendous pressure and that is why he has to drink hard liquor and play with the Sony Playstation PS4.

- Oh, you poor baby!

- But what about the copy of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf on the desk of Yau Wai-ching?

- (Oriental Daily) November 15, 2016. Yau Wai-ching said that they have no regrets even if they have to go to the Court of Final Appeal. She said that this ruling showed that elections are meaningless because they can easily be overturned. It also showed that civilization, the systems and rule-of-law are fragile. She said that they are looking at a dilemma. On one hand, they could accept this outcome and let the government hold by-elections. On the other hand, they can continue the legal process at the risk of personal bankruptcy. But as elected democratic parliamentarians, they have to defend civilization and the systems of Hong Kong.

- And therefore you must donate more money more frequently to Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. In the case of their organization Youngspiration, they actually have corporate registration and bank accounts, so they can take cash, wire transfer or checks. Thank you very much.

- How much money? Leung Chung-hang said that a conservative estimate is more than $5 million in legal fees. Get your wallets out!

- Give them more money? So that he can buy and consume more alcohol and she can buy more clothes to do the catwalk every day?

- The election expense reports showed that Yau Wai-ching spent HK$13,000+ on sake, beer, cotton candy and potato chips. So she can drink too.  What do the campaign donors think about how their money was spent?

- Li Yi has written another essay in Apple Daily, citing once again Haruki Murakami on the Egg and the Tall Wall. No wonder the people of Hong Kong hate Haruki Murakami more and more. Each year we applaud the fact that Murakami has been bypassed once again for the Nobel Prize in Literature because we are tired of hearing about the Egg and the Tall Wall.

Is being weak and vulnerable sufficient and necessary for you to give money? If so, you should be giving money to Aum Shinrikyo, because they are a tiny religious sect being persecuted by the Japanese government. Or to ISIS, because they are being persecuted by the whole wide world. Right now, these two persons Leung and Yau have destroyed the cause of Localism in Hong Kong, and you still want to raise $5,000,000 for them to continue the good work? Was the destruction not complete and thorough enough for you?

Apple Daily also trotted out a defense of "Hong Kong is not China." Hey, that was never the focus. The opponents seized upon "re-fucking of Shina" as an insult to all persons of Chinese descent around the globe. And those two individuals refused to admit that this was an insult and blamed the Ap Lei Chau accent instead. When they led a demonstration to the China Liaison Office, it was a debacle because they fled before everyone else. In less than two months, they have completely ruined the efforts of so many people to build up awareness of Hong Kong Localism. If you tell me that I must support them because they are weak and vulnerable, I must tell you: "Fuck you!"

If Apple Daily thinks that the two should get the $5,000,000, then why doesn't the Apple Daily Foundation start a campaign to solicit and collect donations on their behalf? If Apple Daily is on the side of the egg, then show us some genuine action. How about a contribution of $500,000 from Apple Daily to set an example?

- Youngspiration points out that it is not a fantasy to raise $5,000,000 in private donations. They said that if 5,000 people would donate $1,000 each, the $5,000,000 can be raised in a matter of days. And that is going to change the ending of the story.

- Well, it might be hard for some people to part with $1,000. Since Youngspiration represents the people of Hong Kong as they so claim, it is not too much to ask each of the 7,000,000 citizens to donate $1 each. This yields a war chest of $7,000,000.

- Someone proposes to donate $60 per person. This is the average movie ticket price, and Youngspiration is certainly putting on the best political show in town. Well, I say that you are aiding and abetting the enemy.

(1) The purpose of resistance is to increase the cost of governance and waste the resources of the enemy. It is one thing for you to flush your money down the toilet, but here you actually want to give money to the enemy to buy the bullets for them to shoot you with!

(2) What fucking entertainment!? There is nothing entertaining about resistance. One facet of resistance is to expose the truth. Right now, the truth is that these two little punks know that they broke the law but insist on filing more appeals in the vain hope that some court or the other will eventually find for them.

Look, they put on the oath ceremony show because they thought that the oath and the underlying ordinances/laws were wrong.  Great! If so, they should say so clearly and then try to change the law from within the Legislative Council. If they can't make any headway within the Legislative Council, they can justifiably start a revolution on the outside.

Instead, they went to court and they want the court not to rule in accordance with the law. When the court declines to do so, they immediately announced that rule-of-law is dead in Hong Kong. Time for that looming armed revolution? No, instead it is time to raise more money to file yet another appeal in what they said is a rigged legal system in the hope that they might get a different result the next time.

- How many times do you have to bang your head against the wall before you realize that your head is going to hurt a lot but the wall isn't hurting at all? When will you go and find some dynamite to blow up the wall instead?

(3) Money, money, money. They raised money during the election campaign and they got advances for Legco salaries and expenses, which went to pay for their high living. Most of their prospective donors can't afford to drink the Moet-Chandon champagne, Glenfiddich whiskey, etc found in their Legco offices. They didn't bother to share anything with us when the going was good. Now that their money is drying up, they want us to give more to them?

No wonder people say that living is easy in politics. Resistance means people give you money to spend as you see fit without any oversight or accountability.

This is fucking crazy!

- In order to get a legal representation, a citizen cannot approach a senior barrister directly. Instead, they have to find a solicitor, who will refer a barrister, who will refer a senior barrister. Each of these people have to be paid half the estimated amount up front, unless these lawyers are willing to forgo the advance. It would seem that somebody has already paid or promised to pay. So why do they want $5,000,000 more? To maintain their lifestyles? So, are you going to donate more money more frequently to them?

- (SCMP) By Alice Wu. November 20, 2016.

If you’re tired of all the politics, I feel you. It’s draining, to say the least, especially when the melodrama in Hong Kong is dragging out; it has become downright dreadful when we know there is no respite in sight.

We were supposed to have a brief break after last September’s Legislative Council polls, before the next big event. Even though a large number of people will be unable to cast a vote in the Election Committee subsector elections, less than a month away, and in the chief executive election, scheduled for late March next year, the city should by now be focusing on what’s ahead.

But, thanks to the two recently disqualified lawmakers, who lacked the necessary knowledge, ability and respect for oath-taking, our (albeit dysfunctional) legislature has basically been shut down for a month. The ugly politics that should have been insulated within the chamber once again spilled out onto our streets.

And what should have been decided and concluded on September 4 is now dragging on indefinitely, with two or possibly more by-elections added to the election overload.

Hell-raising politics is not going away any time soon, but the sheer stupidity of the localist pair’s actions really is one for the books – Macbeth, in fact:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, / Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, / To the last syllable of recorded time, / And all our yesterdays have lighted fools / The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! / Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player / That struts and frets his hour upon the stage / And then is heard no more. It is a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing.

They were indeed full of sound and fury, and they did nothing for the common good.

What they did opened the door for an invitation to the courts to intervene. What they did presented an opportunity for an interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee.

What they did, ultimately, may well become the precedent for other legislators to be similarly barred. And that is why the duo’s pledge to spend every penny – and lest we forget, this also means the mounting cost to the public purse – to “appeal at all costs” is beyond rich, coming from them.

Clearly, they have yet to wrap their heads around the concept of “personal responsibility”. Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang is wrong in believing that their disqualification from Legco rendered the election meaningless. They have no one but themselves to blame for their defenestration. It is they who made the election meaningless.

And, to add insult to the grave injury they brought on the rest of us, they are asking for donations. At some point – if we’re not there already – we must take serious offence to be taken as fools, again and again. The curtain must now be drawn on this overly played-out second act.

The irony may be lost on the pair but it’s pretty obvious who has been played for total fools. In case they haven’t noticed, the lawmakers who served as the duo’s chaperones have stopped babysitting them because there is no value in being their keepers any more. Escorting the duo’s Legco gate-crashing attempts served their purpose: to usher the two straight to their political end, and the votes the two rendered meaningless are now political spoils.

The two took the toxic brew and there will be no stay of execution that could stop those ready to contest their seats.

We must fight our political fatigue. We can ill afford to be distracted by those who continuously try to foolishly make their own stupid mistakes our collective problem.

- (Bastille Post) For the judicial review, the government hired the best legal help out there, namely Senior Counsel Benjamin Yu. The High Court has ruled that Leung and Yau must bear 80% of the government's legal fees. Insiders estimated that the government's legal bill may be as much as HK$10 million, which means that Leung and Yau will have to pay HK$8 million.

- What are the grounds for an appeal? Leung Chung-hang enumerates:

(1) Parts of the Interpretation of Basic Law Article 104 by the National People's Congress Standing Committee are invalid;

(2) Under the separation of powers, Legislative Council matters should be determined by the Legislative Council itself;

(3) They did not refuse or neglect to take the oath of office.

If these are the grounds, the case is lost already:

(1) The National People's Congress Standing Committee is the Court of Final Appeal for the Court of Final Appeal. The Court of Final Appeal cannot overrule its superior court. Besides the judge today wrote: "9. The Court also accepts CE/SJ’s submissions that the laws of Hong Kong as set out in relevant provisions of the ODO, when properly construed independent of the Interpretation, carry effectively the same meanings and legal effects as those of the above meaning of BL104." That is, the Interpretation carried no weight in the court's ruling.

(2) There is no genuine separation of powers in Hong Kong (nor for the United States or the United Kingdom either). For example, Article 50 of the Basic Law says that the Chief Executive may dissolve the Legislative Council if it refuses to pass a budget or any important bill introduced by the government.

(3) Just play the videotape of their swearing-in ceremonies. As the High Court noted:

4.  There is no dispute among the parties that, on 12 October 2016, Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau purported to take the oath in the following ways and manners:

(a) Each of them used the term “Hong Kong nation” at the outset of the oath-taking;

(b) After the interjection by the Clerk, each of them mispronounced the word “China” as “Geen-na” or “Sheen-na” (“支那”);

(c) Ms. Yau mis-pronounced “People’s Republic of China” as “the People’s Refucking of Sheen-na”;

(d) Each of them unfolded and displayed a blue banner bearing the words “HONG KONG IS NOT CHINA”;

(e) Mr. Leung displayed dismissive and not-serious tone in taking the oath after the Clerk’s interjection and crossed his index and middle finger of his right hand over the Bible; and

(f) Ms. Yau emphasized “Hong Kong” with a distinctly loud tone of voice but adopted a lower voice and hurried manner for the rest of the oath.

5.  The Court notes that Mr. Leung and Ms. Yau have not put forward any positive case by way of submissions or evidence that the oaths they purportedly took on 12 October 2016 complied with BL104 or the requirements under the ODO.  Nor have they put forward any positive case by way of submissions or evidence that their above conducts did not amount to declining or neglecting to take the LegCo Oath under BL104 or the ODO.

- (Bastille Post) It is clear that Leung Chung-hang did not read the court ruling. His comments on their appeal showed that his ideas are all ill-considered. Not surprising at all, of course. Why else did they blow everything up with those silly acts at the oath ceremony?

- (Bastille Post) Leung Chung-hang said that they studied prior cases before deciding on how to perform their oaths. The idea is that one must read the whole text. "We did exactly that. We read it the same way as other people have done so before. Why are they saying no today?"

Why does anyone have to study prior cases in order to take an oath? How hard is taking an oath? The only reason why they studied prior cases was that they wanted to find a way of not saying the oath, especially the part about pledging allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic China and the Basic Law. And then they thought that they could mispronounce "republic" as "re-fucking" and "China" as "Shina" to insult China and its citizens, and also display a "Hong Kong is not China" banner to advocate independence. In which prior cases were those actions acceptable?

- Leung and Yau said that they have to file an appeal in order to defend "civilization" in Hong Kong? Was it "civilized" to say "Re-fucking of Shina" in an oath of office?

- (Facebook) The split personality of James To Kun-shun (Democratic Party)

(October 19, 2016) We democratic legislators severely reprimand the government for filing a judicial review without any cause, to castrate the separation of powers which has been so effective in Hong Kong.

(November 15, 2016) No matter what, we at the Democratic Party will not agree with their manner of taking the oath. But we have a reflection. The court has rendered a verdict. We respect this verdict.

- If you want to now the direction in which the wind is blowing, all you have to do is to watch which direction James To is bending towards.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) November 16, 2016.

The government’s legal challenge against the Youngspiration duo is “the terror of the law, white terror,” former lawmaker Albert Ho has said on Commercial Radio Wednesday morning.

Ho spoke after the High Court ruled that the government won its bid to disqualify Yau Wai-ching and Baggio Leung Chung-hang from the Legislative Council.

The government applied for a judicial review as the two politicians were due to retake their oaths. During their first attempts, they carried a flag which said “Hong Kong is not China” and pronounced China as “Chee-na.”

“The government is using taxpayers’ money to lodge this legal challenge,” said Ho. “The lawmakers are using their own money to fight, and if they lose they have to pay court fees. How is this fair?” He also said that Yau and Leung should not be asked to pay back any expenses that they applied for, since the expenses were already approved.

Ho also questioned whether the government had already been planning the move to lodge a legal challenge against them beforehand.

“I have reason to believe that there may have been a plan or a script at an earlier time.” The pro-Beijing camp may have received instructions to collectively walk out of the Legislative Council Chamber before Yau and Leung could retake their oaths, Ho said.

“I feel very worried and unsettled that the government is so cunning,” he said, adding that it was not fair and that a society under the rule of law should not do such a thing. As with any issue, Ho said, if the government plans on seeking follow-up action, there should be ample warning.

“The consequences of this incident are very deep and far-reaching,” he said. “No one thought that the law could be used that way, and now it has been given to the National People’s Committee for an interpretation… directing our judges on how the law should be interpreted.”

In any civilised place with the rule of law, he said, the most important thing is that the law is clear, and people know their choices and the consequences for what they do. “The first thing is that… whether it is right or wrong, they did not know the consequences,” said Ho, “the second thing is that in so many terms, especially the last term, many people took oaths like that.”

- “The first thing is that… whether it is right or wrong, they did not know the consequences,” said Ho, “the second thing is that in so many terms, especially the last term, many people took oaths like that.”

Bwahhhhhh! Leung Chung-hang is 30-years-old and Yau Wai-ching is 25-years-old . Both are university graduates. And they don't know the consequences of saying "People's Re-fucking of Shina" during the oath of office? And they want to become legislators who shall enact the laws of the land because they are learned and sagacious?

And many people took oaths like that in so many terms, especially the last term? Really. I thought that this was the first time that I heard anyone say "People's Re-fucking of Shina" anytime anywhere! How many other Legislative Councilors have done this previously?

- (SpeakoutHK)

Firstly, Youngspiration violated both the Basic Law and the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance. These two laws/ordinances have always been around and the government did not just tailor-make them in order to go after Youngspiration. Everybody and especially lawmakers can see that they are there. So how can Albert Ho say that the government kept them in hiding until now?

Secondly, Albert Ho says that the government encouraged these violations because they didn't prosecute previous offenders. So he is saying: "Hey, it was always this bad before but you didn't stop them. So it is wrong for you to stop these two now." If I have always illegally double-parked downstairs before, then it is wrong for the traffic policeman to issue a parking ticket to me now! Shouldn't you be reflecting on your crimes instead of blaming law enforcement?

Thirdly, while many people have played around with their oaths before, I am sure that it is the first time that somebody said "Shina" to insult the Chinese people. Just because people put up with all your previous shenanigans does not mean that you are right. They are merely giving you a chance! But you keep pushing and pushing until this got out of hand! The penalties are different for first offenders, repeat offenders and serial offenders.  As a lawyer, Albert Ho ought to know.

- (Apple Daily) A Taiwan think tank advisor said that this court ruling "showed that Hong Kong's democratic legal system is not sufficiently mature and tolerant." "Such situations over oaths have occurred in Taiwan, the United States and other democratic countries" but those were never real problems. In Hong Kong, they "disrespected the choice of the people." If the by-elections ended up with the re-election of Leung-Yau, "it will look terrible for the High Court and the rest of Hong Kong."

- To make it into the by-elections, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching will have to get past the Returning Officers. Let's suppose that they do by some miracle.

Just remember that the by-election is a first-past-the-post winner-take-all contest.  You have to finish first as opposed to the being in the top six in Kowloon West or the top nine in New Territories East in the general elections.

What are the absolute levels of support for Leung-Yau at this point? They were elected in a proportionate representation system with fewer than 6.5% and 7.4%% of the votes in their districts. Do you think that they will get more votes than before? Do you think their "Shina-jin" talk is going to attract more people?

What are the relative levels of support for Leung-Yau? There are three scenarios. One is that they are the only candidates in their districts. What do you think voter turnout rate will be? 1%? 2%? Second is that they run against one and only one pro-establishment candidate. Do you think that all pan-democratic voters (most of whom are ethnic Chinese) will come out for them? Third is that they run in a field with many candidates across the political spectrum. Do you fancy their chances against some pan-democratic "adult" or a more "responsible" Localist?

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Youngspiration politician Yau Wai-ching has stressed that she and Baggio Leung were democratically elected after the government won its bid to disqualify the duo from the legislature. “I must stress that, Leung Chun-hang and I were democratically elected lawmakers by 20,643 and some 30,000 voters respectively in the election in September this year,” she said. “[Since] the court adopted such measures to strip us of our lawmaker qualifications, I think you all have an idea what kind of society this is,” she said. When asked if she was disappointed by the ruling, she said she understood that such an outcome may happen. “I will say that the government has employed many means to apply pressure to the court – such a ruling was made under such pressure, it was within [our] expectation,” she said. She also cited the ruling as saying that the decision made by the judge was “unrelated to the Basic Law interpretation.”

- Leung Chung-hang won 37,997 (6.5%) votes in 7th place in the New Territories East Legislative Council election. Yau Wai-ching won 20,643 (7.4%) votes in 6th place in the Kowloon West Legislative Council election.

It is a matter of speculation as to how many of those 37,997 + 20,643 = 58,640 people are regretting their votes. I would argue that the answer must be 'many.'

First of all, Leung and Yau were elected to fight inside the Legislative Council. Inside the system and not in the streets. By their non-oaths, they have managed to keep themselves out. So all those 58,640 votes are now wasted. If only they could just read off the words in two minutes, they would be fighting long and hard within the Legislative Council for four years.

Secondly, Leung and Yau were elected to fight for Hong Kong self-determination/independence. By their oaths, they have managed to offend all the Chinese around the world and make them hostile to the idea of Hong Kong self-determination/independence. This was a brand-killing act.

It is for this reason that most people think that Leung and Yau are secretly working for the Chinese Communists to destroy Hong Kong self-determination/independence.  Leung/Yau may demur, but that is the objective reality.

- The High Court's decision has nullified election results? If Leung and Yau did not provide the opening, how could the Department of Justice file a judicial review? Leung and Yau need to look in the mirror to see the people who caused them to lose their posts.

- (The Stand News) What will Leung-Yau do?

1. Apologize to those who voted for them (0% likelihood)

2. Use normal Chinese to write an open letter of apology (0% likelihood, because they don't know how to write in normal Chinese).

3. Come out and promise to fight for Hong Kong independence even at the risk of going to jail (0.5% likelihood, because Leung took the taxi to leave an uprising previously)

4. Yau will cut her hair to express her position (-100% likelihood). This is a statement of position. This is not performance art. This is to objectify women and define gender roles. You are welcome to sue me at the Equal Opportunities Commission. This is public relations through political image. You may think that I am joking but I am really serious.

5. Give an all-out effort to help localist candidates enter the by-elections ... (75% likelihood). Excuse me, if I were them, I wouldn't -- they are huge negative assets by now. But Youngspiration will want stick a hand in.

6. Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. But after you read the judgment, you would know that the lawyers who tell you to appeal are stealing your money. They will say that they plan to file an appeal, but this is merely posturing. (100% likelihood).

7. Resign from Youngspiration because you have disappointed your political party (1% likelihood). The problem is that you must know how to reflect. You know that if you resign, people will have the final proof that you were Communist moles. But since you really are moles, you shouldn't have to care about what other people think.

8. Disband Youngspiration (0%). Nobody can make that decision, nor Mr. Leung, not Ms. Yau. It is more likely that Youngspiration will fade away gradually.

9. Go back to local district politics, such as becoming aides to District Councilors. But of course you will only be causing fucking trouble for those District Councilors.

- (HKG Pao) Civic Passion legislator Cheng Chung-tai said that the oath incident has caused mainstream public opinion to swing away from Localism, with certain Localists abandoning the cause because what Leung-Yau did offended them. Cheng pointed out that the reports of soccer fans booing the national anthem used to be able to gather more than 1000 LIKE's. The most recent incidents were not able to get even 100 LIKE's.

- (Bastille Post) Next up is Lau Siu-lai's super-slow rendition of the oath of office. Afterwards she wrote on Facebook: "The slow reading is to highlight the vacuity of the oath" and "I read out more than 90 unconnected words, without any continuity or meaning to speak of."

In the Leung-Yau case, the judge that their oaths objectively and clearly showed that they had no intention to take the oath in a solemn and sincere manner and attest to their willingness to fulfill the oath. That was because they refuse to accept the One Country Two Systems principle and the importance of One Country.

It would seem very difficult for Lau Siu-lai to convince the court that she was genuinely sincere and solemn at the time. Her only recourse is to use Leung-Yau's defense that this court has no right to interfere with the Legco president allowing her to re-take the oath. However, the court ruling makes it clear that the Legco president has no right to do so. In the end, Lau may end up the same way as Leung-Yau.

- Yau Chung-yim's case is less serious because he inserted a phrase first in the middle, and then at the end of the oath in the second try. At least, he has not said afterwards that he disavow the oath.

- Yau Wai-ching's Facebook

Previously, the Chinese government has "interpreted" Basic Law Article 104 in order to oust popularly elected legislators. This action may have vacated the Joint Sino-British Declaration. We have written to the United Kingdom for help. The letter has been delivered to the Foreign Office in the United Kingdom. Annex I of the Joint Sino-British Declaration states that:

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be directly under the authority of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy. Except for foreign and defence affairs which are the responsibilities of the Central People's Government, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication.

When China made the interpretation, they have clearly violated the conditions in this Annex. This Declaration was agreed upon by China and the United Kingdom. At that time, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was already in existence, and the Declaration was also filed with the United Nations. Under Article 60 of the Vienna Convention, any complaint about violation can only be filed by the aggrieved nation. Therefore we had to write to the United Kingdom and ask for their intervention to make China fulfill their promise. Otherwise, the Joint Declaration becomes void, and the people of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom can renegotiate a new treaty to decide the future of Hong Kong.

- The United Kingdom did not respond and former governor Chris Patten came to Hong Kong to disparage the independence movement. This led Baggio Leung Chung-hang to comment:

Do not harbor too many illusions about the United Kingdom.
Based upon experience, the United Kingdom is one of the most Chinese Communists-friendly nations, with extremely conservative policies towards China.

Well, Leung should shared his views with Yau and then they didn't have to waste the time and effort to write the letter to the United Kingdom government.

- (SCMP) December 3, 2014.

Beijing has dismissed the notion that Britain has any moral responsibility for Hong Kong after 1997, shortly after a top Chinese diplomat claimed the Joint Declaration that settled the city's future was already "void". The war of words has continued after Beijing blocked a delegation of British lawmakers from entering the former colony.

Asked whether Britain still had any responsibility for the city as a signatory to the agreement, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said that was not the case. "Britain has no sovereignty over Hong Kong that has returned to China, no authority and no right to oversight. There is no such thing as a moral responsibility," she said yesterday. "The real aim of a small minority of British people trying to use so-called moral responsibility to obscure the facts is to interfere in China's internal affairs. [This] cannot succeed, and is something China certainly cannot accept."'

- (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China) November 17, 2016.

Q: Yau Wai-Ching, the disqualified legislator-elect said she had appealed the High Court's decision. She also wrote on her Facebook page that the central government violated the China-UK Joint Statement and asked for UK intervention. What is your comment?

A: We have noted the ruling given by Hong Kong's High Court yesterday.

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China, and its affairs China's domestic affairs. No foreign country has the right to interfere. Pro-independence forces in Hong Kong want to split the nation, and they publicly seek external support for that purpose. Such actions constitute a serious violation of the Constitution of China, the Basic Law of Hong Kong and other laws of the Hong Kong SAR, undermine China's sovereignty and security, jeopardize the fundamental interests of the Hong Kong SAR, and cross the red line of "one country, two systems". For those who try to buoy themselves up by leaning onto foreign forces, we want them to know that any scheme to rely on foreign forces for their own political motives will come to no avail.

- Yau's presentation mentioned (1) China 'interpreted' Basic Law Article 104; (2) popularly elected legislators were ousted as the evidence that the Joint Sino-British Declaration of 1985 has been violated. This glosses over two critical points.

Firstly, China 'interpreted' Basic Law Article 104 as empowered by Basic Law Article 158. The Basic Law was drafted by a Committee composed of members from Hong Kong and the mainland, and formally promulgated on April 4, 1990 by the National People's Congress. The United Kingdom sat and watched the process, in agreement that this mini-constitution should be written by the local Hong Kong people and the sovereign nation. The United Kingdom cannot intervene with the exercise of powers given by the Basic Law.

Secondly, Leung and Yau were ousted not through the exercise of the NPCSC's interpretation of Basic Law Article 104. They were ousted by the High Court, which said that the ruling would be the same with or without the NPCSC interpretation. The reason was that Leung and Yau failed to take the oath of office properly in accordance with existing local laws on oaths and declaration. Does the United Kingdom think what Leung and Yau did during their oaths was acceptable? Can they say so with a straight face?

- Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 in the United Kingdom:

Should a Member take part in parliamentary proceedings without having sworn the oath or made the affirmation, the penalty is £500 for every offence, together with vacation of his or her seat. The position is set out in Erskine May:

By the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866, any peer voting by himself or his proxy, or sitting in the House of Lords without having taken the oath, is subject, for every such offence, to penalty of £500; and any Member of the House of Commons who votes such, or sits during any debate after the Speaker has been chosen, without having taken the oath, is subject to the same penalty, and his seat also vacated in the same manner as if he were dead. The fine may be recovered upon the suit of the Crown alone. When peers or Members have neglected to take the oaths from haste, accident, or inadvertence, Acts of Indemnity have been passed to relieve them from the consequences of their neglect. In the Commons, however, it is necessary to move a new writ immediately the omission is discovered, as the Member's seat is vacated.

There have been cases where Members or Peers have inadvertently neglected to take the oath and they have sometimes been relieved of the consequences of their omission by an Act of Indemnity. Such an Act cannot, however, prevent a Member’s seat from being immediately vacated; a new writ must be moved for at once.

The requirement to take the oath/affirmation is also enshrined in the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament:

II Public duty

By virtue of the oath, or affirmation, of allegiance, taken by all Members when they are elected to the House, members have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to law.

Action could, at least in theory, be taken against any Member not complying with this particular duty in the code of conduct.

This means that even if you make the oath faithfully and completely without any 'naughtiness", you are held to that oath afterwards. So if you pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and its Basic Law, you cannot talk about Hong Kong independence or overthrowing the government while you are a legislator.

Does the UK government approve of what Leung and Yau did during the swearing-in ceremony? That is indefensible. If what Leung and Yau did was wrong, then shouldn't the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 (from which Hong Kong's Oaths and Declarations Ordinance is derived) apply, such that their seats are vacated as if they were dead?

- (Oriental Daily) Yau Wai-ching said that she has already written to the British government to ask them to look into just how China has reneged on the Joint Sino-British Declaration.

- How many times must you be told by the United Kingdom government that they are out of the loop? Why do you keep looping and looping this same old song?

- Joshua Wong is in the United States and he can contact the State Department there. But is this a good time to promote self-determination/independence given #Calexit?

- (SCMP) Forget about localism, now it’s narcissism that’s at play. By Alex Lo. November 17, 2016.

What sad, solitary figures those two struck against the closed gates to the High Court. By now, Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang have become politically toxic. Even their one-time allies from the pan-democratic camp were nowhere to be seen. Those from the Civic Party who helped them gatecrash their first Legislative Council meeting were conspicuously absent.

Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung of the Court of First Instance has delivered a stunning rebuke to every key point fought for by the pair from Youngspiration in the government’s case against their disgraceful oath-taking.

His judgment is a model of common sense and judiciousness. Those who have tried to defend the indefensible on behalf of Yau and Leung would do well to study Au’s ruling.

The judge wrote that the pair’s oath-taking was a willful attempt to insult China, advocate independence, and mock the Legco oath itself.

Not only did they not swear solemnly and sincerely under the doctrine of common law, they showed outright contempt for the “one country, two systems” principle.

When Yau used the “f” word to distort “republic” in the nation’s name, Au wrote, “the inevitable inference is the contempt she showed for the People’s Republic of China as the ‘one country’ in the ‘one country, two systems’ concept which is fundamental to the Basic Law”.

Au wrote that Yau had repudiated any allegiance to the city as an inalienable part of China, as did the pair’s deliberate mispronouncing of China as “Chee-na”, a derogatory term used by the Japanese during wartime.

“[They] manifested a clear intention not to be bound in conscience to perform faithfully and truthfully the oath as required by Basic Law Article 104 and the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance.” Au ruled.

Yau claimed the court was under political pressure from the central government, and that Hong Kong’s legal system was under threat because she lost her case. Wrong! Yau has a tendency to blame everyone else for her own mistakes and stupidity. No, you lose, Ms Yau, because of your own blindness, willfulness and juvenile irresponsibility. The same with your friend, Mr Leung.

The two put on a brave face, vowing to appeal all the way to the highest court. Some people just don’t know they have crossed the line – in the court of law and that of public opinion.

- Crossing the road

Panel 1: Most normal people will cross the road only when the light changes to green.
Panel 2: Only a small number of people will cross the road at will.
Panel 3: When more people ignore the pedestrian light ...
Panel 4: Some law-abiding citizens will follow their lead.


Panel 1: But does more people doing it make this right?
Panel 2: When they are held to account, all sorts of excuses are offered: "There were no cars on the road," "I didn't notice the light," "I was in a hurry", "This is a trivial matter," "I did whatever others were doing."
Panel 3: Then they come up with their illogical conclusions: "You are preventing me from going to work and thus interfering with my freedom", "I pay my taxes, so you have no right to ticket me," "Why did you pick on me when so many others were doing the same thing?"
Panel 4: How come they never ever admit that they were wrong to do it? Do they ever admit that they were wrong? Police Officer: "Mister, please show me your Hong Kong ID."

- (US State Department Press Briefing, November 15, 2016)

QUESTION: I don’t know if this was addressed before. Maybe you did or there was a statement over the weekend and I missed it, but Hong Kong? And --

MS TRUDEAU: I haven’t, so if you --

QUESTION: Yes.

MS TRUDEAU: -- if you want to ask about them.

QUESTION: The removal of these legislatures on the oath issue.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. We are aware of reports that a Hong Kong court has disqualified two legislator-elects who altered the wording of their --

QUESTION: I think it’s legislators-elect.

MS TRUDEAU: What did I say? Legislators – did I put the plural on the wrong --

QUESTION: It’s like attorneys general.

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you. Legislators-elect who altered the wording of their oaths of office. The United States strongly supports and values Hong Kong’s legislative council and independent judiciary, two institutions that play a critically important role in promoting and protecting the special administrative region’s high degree of autonomy under Basic Law and the “one country, two systems” framework that has been in place since 1997. We believe that an open society with the highest possible degree of autonomy and governed by the rule of law is essential for Hong Kong’s continued stability and prosperity as a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China.

QUESTION: Okay, maybe I missed it. So you think that – you don’t like this action by the court?

MS TRUDEAU: We believe that the Chinese and the Hong Kong SAR government and all elected politicians in Hong Kong should refrain from any actions that fuel concern or undermine confidence in the “one country, two systems” principle.

QUESTION: So does that mean that you – that altering the oath, you’re opposed to, or that the court stripping them of their office is of concern? Which or both?

MS TRUDEAU: Both. We --

QUESTION: So you don’t like the fact that they changed the oath and you don’t like the fact that the court ruled the way it did.

MS TRUDEAU: We believed that – actually, both. So one, it was an independent – the independent legislative council, the independent judiciary, we believe played that important role. But we also call on both the Hong Kong politicians as well as the Chinese Government.

- I read this several times. I can't make any sense of what Trudeau is saying. Is there a problem with the transcription?

- Trudeau has a dilemma. On one hand, she does not approve of what Leung and Yau did. She cannot approve because of commonsense. On the other hand, she wants Leung and Yau not to be ousted from the Legislative Council because they are 'pro-democracy'. The reporter knew what the dilemma was and took Trudeau for a fun ride.

- Bwahhhhh! On one hand, they don't like the legislators-elect altering the oath. On the other hand, they don't like the court voiding their oaths and vacating their seats. Well, this is a clear advocacy for Rule-of-Man. Thus, the Oaths and Declaration Ordinance applies to all Hong Kong citizens -- unless you are a "pro-democracy" (whatever that means) legislator-elect in which case you must not be punished even though you did wrong.

- (US State Department Human Rights Report 2016)

In July, for the first time the government announced all LegCo candidates would have to sign a Confirmation Form pledging their allegiance to the SAR and their intent to uphold the Basic Law, including three provisions that stated Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the PRC. Legal scholars and prodemocracy activists criticized the government’s use of the Confirmation Form, noting the LegCo had not approved this change to the election procedures or the requirements for candidates to stand for legislative office. In August the government disqualified proindependence LegCo candidate Edward Leung, of the Hong Kong Indigenous party, from running in the election in the New Territories East district. An elections officer refused Leung’s candidacy, even though Leung had signed the Confirmation Form and said he would drop his proindependence stance. Leung and another candidate filed judicial review applications charging that the use of the Confirmation Form was not in accordance with the SAR’s laws. Leung also filed an elections petition in September alleging his disqualification from the race was unlawful.

Some observers expressed concern that the interpretation could restrict the right to stand for office guaranteed in Article 26 of the Basic Law for those who espouse proindependence views, and possibly for those who support self-determination as well. At the end of the year, the Hong Kong high court had disqualified two proindependence legislators-elect, Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Leung, from taking office.

At a press conference announcing the NPCSC interpretation, NPCSC Legal Committee Chair Li Fei suggested that support for self-determination would be treated the same as promoting independence, and could thus disqualify legislators under the new interpretation. On December 2, Chief Executive Leung and Secretary for Justice Yuen filed a legal challenge to the legitimacy of four other opposition legislators--veteran activist “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung, former Occupy Central student leader Nathan Law, lecturer Lau Siu-lai, and university professor Edward Yiu--over the manner in which they took their oaths. The courts accepted the government’s judicial review application on December 15, and initial hearings for the cases are expected to be held in February 2017. 

(info.gov.hk) Response to United States report on human rights. March 4, 2017.

In response to media enquiries, a spokesman for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government today (March 4) made the following response to the comments contained in the United States Department of State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2016 relating to the HKSAR: 

Since the return to the Motherland, the HKSAR has been exercising a high degree of autonomy and 'Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong' in strict accordance with the Basic Law. This demonstrates the full and successful implementation of the 'one country, two systems' principle, which has been widely recognised by the international community.

 Under Article 158 of the Basic Law, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) has the power to interpret the Basic Law. The NPCSC's power of interpretation of the Basic Law is part of the constitutional order of the HKSAR, and is recognised by Hong Kong Courts. 

 There are ongoing judiciary proceedings regarding 'confirmation form' and 'invalid nominations' in relation to the 2016 Legislative Council election, as well as 'oath-taking' by certain Legislative Council Members. Foreign governments should respect the rule of law and the independent judicial system in Hong Kong. They should not interfere in the internal affairs of the HKSAR.

- (EJ Insight) Why the Youngspiration duo lost their case. By Ding Wang. November 18, 2016.

The arguments presented by Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus “Baggio” Leung Chung-hang — the two lawmakers at the center of the controversy — during the trial appeared to be both weak and flimsy, and could not even stand the most basic legal scrutiny in court.

For example, the duo cited Article 77 of the Basic Law, which stipulates that “members of the Legislative Council shall be immune from legal action in respect of their statements at meetings of the Council.”

Under Article 77 of the Basic Law, Legco “members” are immune from any legal liability for what they have say during Legco “meetings”.

However, both Yau and Leung were not yet Legco members officially when they took their oaths, nor should the swearing-in ceremony itself be considered a Legco meeting. Besides, the oath of the Legco office itself is hardly a speech or statement by nature either, and therefore doesn’t fall within the jurisdiction of Article 77.

In fact, one of the major reasons why the two lawmakers-elect lost their case is because they cited the wrong piece of legislation in their arguments during the trial.

Worse still, the arguments presented by the duo were further undermined by the fact that they didn’t even bother to cite the point that it remains questionable whether the words they used and the flag they exhibited during their oath-taking constituted any refusal to take the oath under the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance.

Even Justice Au was puzzled by their failure to cite that forceful point during the trial.

After the High Court ruled in favor of the government and declared the lawmaker status of Yau and Leung as null and void, the duo vowed to appeal, arguing repeatedly that they were rightfully elected by their constituents, and therefore no one, including the court, has the power to remove them from office because public opinion is on their side.

Once again, they got it all wrong, as in any society governed by the rule of law, court decision is always made solely on the basis of legal grounds and substantial evidence rather than public opinion.

In other words, when deciding whether someone is guilty or not, the court would only take in account whether he or she has actually broken the law.

Public sentiment and general opinion are never the court’s concern when it comes to trials.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) Hong Kong’s oath row is so perfect for Beijing, they couldn’t have planned it better themselves. By Kent Ewing. November 21, 2016.

Are ousted lawmakers Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching secretly in the employ of China’s Ministry of Security? Is their political party, Youngspiration, a covert faction of the Communist Youth League?

Indeed, is Hong Kong’s entire independence movement an elaborate plot hatched by Chinese leaders conspiring with Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to tame an unruly Legislative Council, shackle Hong Kong’s judiciary and reintroduce national security legislation that will make sneezing in Beijing’s direction a treasonable offence?

Well, if so, then the nefarious scheme is working brilliantly and the two closet patriots are to be congratulated for their grand deception on behalf of their beloved motherland.

If, on the other hand, their arguments and antics over the past month have been a genuine and earnest attempt to defend and enhance the singular freedoms enjoyed by Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region of China, then they are, in a city full of lame-brained political leaders both young and old, the lamest of them all. And now, with every appeal of the High Court ruling that went so predictably against them last week, their sorry legend grows.

Their juvenile stunts during the swearing-in ceremony for a new LegCo term last month may have been intended as an attention-grabbing protest against the oppressive hand of the central government and its servile minions in Hong Kong; as things turned out, however, their obtuse shenanigans were the gift that Beijing had been waiting for since the handover from British to Chinese rule nearly 20 years ago: an anti-China demonstration so insultingly beyond the pale that it actually increased public support for the central government’s intervention into Hong Kong affairs while at the same time prompting an interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress that, at the very least, will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech in LegCo and, at worst, lead to an outright purge of dissident voices from that body and set Hong Kong’s democracy movement back to the Stone Age.

Meanwhile, a combative and unpopular chief executive whose prospects of reelection were wavering between slim and none is now back in the fight for a second term after taking the lead in the battle against the Youngspiration pair. As it was his administration that filed the judicial review resulting in their ouster, CY Leung’s once-moribund dream of winning another five years as Hong Kong’s leader has been revived.

Leung must love this dynamic duo and can only hope for more like them. They are the perfect character foils for him as he works to convince Beijing that he is the best choice for Hong Kong—although his efforts may not be enough to save him from a potential challenge from his finance minister, John Tsang Chun-wah, who remains far more popular than his boss.

We’ll see. But one thing is for sure: Leung has done everything Beijing could have asked of him, and the localist movement, embodied by the two expelled legislators, has played right into his hands.

This may seem like “blaming the victim”—as Sixtus Leung claimed in a recent CNN interview—but in this bizarre case it is the victims who are guilty of victimising themselves.

Hong Kong’s constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are not going to be protected by crude protests that offend most of the people who live here and have now been found—albeit dubiously—to flout the Basic Law. In the end, the struggle to secure Hong Kong’s future cannot be cast as a contest of Us vs. Them, Independence vs. Dictatorship, Good vs. Evil. Those will all be losing battles for the city and the special freedoms it enjoys within a large, paranoid and authoritarian state.

No, this must be a dance, a subtle dance that requires, first and foremost, adherence to the “one country, two systems” principle and an appreciation and understanding of Hong Kong’s unique historical place in China.

In the wake of the oath-taking debacle, it’s time for the city’s pro-democracy forces to regroup and rethink a strategy that has gone terribly wrong.

- (EJ Insight) How Justice Thomas Au opened door for ‘cooperation’ in govt. By Wong On-yin. November 23, 2016.

The National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s recent interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law left the people of Hong Kong in a state of shock in two ways.

One is that the interpretation unmistakably indicated that Beijing maintains a firm grip on both the judiciary and the legislature.

It will go to any lengths to get rid of any lawmaker who advocates separatism, regardless of the fact that he or she has been elected to Legco.

And two is that Justice Thomas Au’s ruling on the oath-taking case almost completely dispelled the longstanding myth that judges are always impartial and immune to political pressure.

In fact, Justice Au’s ruling served as a rude awakening that judges have always had the best interests of the government, the rich and the powerful, as well as the establishment, rather than the average individual, at heart.

We would be naive to believe that the common people can rely on the court to redress social inequalities.

As I have stressed over and over again, if the people of Hong Kong really want to achieve self-determination and topple the status quo, they can rely on no one — not the judges or politicians — and fight for their cause through direct action.

Just think about it: would Beijing have dared undertake the NPCSC interpretation if hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens had taken to the streets and staged another occupy movement as they did two years ago?

On the other hand, the fact that Beijing unilaterally called a halt to the Individual Visit Scheme and stopped allowing 10 million tourists to come to Hong Kong annually as planned is largely because it had cold feet in the face of massive resistance by tens of thousands of Hong Kong citizens.

Such remarkable achievements are not something that the pro-establishment court or some hypocritical politicians could have accomplished.

The fact that on Nov. 4 Justice Thomas Au denied a request by senior barrister Benjamin Yu, representing the government, for a quick ruling after he had already heard the arguments from both sides, and then went on to spend two weeks to write his ruling suggests that Justice Au was waiting for “instructions” from the NPCSC.

Justice Au’s repeated assertion that he had not been influenced by the interpretation was a dead giveaway that only further incriminated him.

Rather than laying down the legal grounds for the ruling in the government’s favour, Justice Au’s 50-page decision was in fact a collection of arguments intended to justify why the separation of the three branches of government no longer applies before the omnipotent NPCSC. That is absolutely spine-chilling.

I have reason to believe that not only were the government and the Department of Justice, but also the judiciary, notified in advance of the details of the NPCSC interpretation, all of them were also instructed by Beijing to act accordingly.

It appears Justice Au fully complied with Beijing’s order and also did more.

That said, I would say Justice Au has opened the door for the “cooperation of the three branches”, the kind of system practised in the mainland.

The fact that he failed to take into account the important factor that the Youngspiration duo were only mimicking their predecessors who also deliberately failed to deliver their oaths properly in protest against Beijing’s political interference, suggests that Justice Au has allowed himself to be an accomplice in Beijing’s plot to destroy our judicial independence.

Here is a YouTube video of an incident in which a traffic policeman is writing a ticket to a male driver and a female passenger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GooafeULQo

0:05 Woman (to unseen person): Bitch, go eat shit!
0:10 Woman (to police) Go!
0:15 Policeman (to unseen person): Keep quiet! Keep quiet! Even I am not saying anything.
0:18 Woman: Eat shit!
0:24 Woman: You are taking a long time writing the ticket! You are crazy! You damned fella! You eat shit! How can you be issuing tickets in this manner? You are wasting taxpayers' money. How much do you earn each month? Damned fella! Fucking useless!
0:49 Woman (gets out of car and wagging finger): You are very diligent! You are really good at issuing tickets! But when it comes to arresting criminals, you hide on the side! Damned fella! There are so many traffic accidents around. Why don't you just die? You eat shit! Crazy! You took half an hour to issue a ticket! Are you nuts? Wasting taxpayers money! I am going to file a complaint against you. I am trying to save a life. I am going to Queen Mary Hospital. Damned fella! You eat shit!
1:24 Woman (tries to snatch the ticket): Give it to me, damned fella!
1:28 Policeman: I will put it over there.
1:32 Woman (approaches the policeman) I am definitely only to write a complaint about you.
1:35 Policeman: You calm down. This is my first warning to you.
1:37 Woman: This is my second warning to you.
1:39 Unseen bystander: Police officer sir, you don't have to be afraid. We can be a witness for you. You have us as your witnesses.
1:49 Policeman: Can you get back into the car? The two of you are the ones who are taking up the time.
1:51 Unseen bystander: There is a whole street full of witnesses. A whole street full of witnesses. Right, you have nothing to be afraid of.
2:20 Woman: I want to see if he is going to take 30 minutes to issue a ticket.

(Headline Daily) November 14, 2016.

Today the Hong Kong Police Public Relations Board brought 46-year-old traffic policeman Cheung back to the scene of the incident to explain traffic regulations. Cheung said that he acts in a restrained manner when issuing tickets because he understands how people feel. However, Cheung says that he has to carry out his duty.

Cheung said that it normally takes 5 minutes to issue a traffic ticket. In this case, the principal was emotionally excited, swung her umbrella and tried to snatch the tickets away. There were also large numbers of spectators. Therefore it took longer than usual, or about 10 minutes. With respect to the woman's threat to lodge a complaint, Cheung said: "That is not up to me."

According to the eyewitness Mr. Chow, police officer Cheung went by the book. Cheung had to call to check whether the driver has an outstanding arrest warrant. Then he had to copy down the vehicle registration information. Chow did not think that Cheung slowed down deliberately. Chow also thought that the woman was "out of bounds" with her berating of the police officer.

(Apple Daily) November 14, 2016.

The male driver in the video has been identified as Fung Siu-wing, publisher of the defunct Hong Kong Daily News. The now-retired Fung said that it is a tragedy for media to have such a piece of garbage news being hyped into a top story. He said that the policeman was deliberately annoying them and took half an hour to write a ticket. Therefore Fung's wife got upset.

Fung said that they wanted to hurry over to Queen Mary Hospital to visit a friend. During the haste, they took the wrong turn and violated the traffic regulations. Fung admitted that he was wrong and that he will pay the traffic fine. But he was not happy that the policeman took his time. He supported his wife in being so excited, because she was fighting for justice. "People have emotions. She was slightly aggressive. If the judge is wrong in court, you can throw a shoe at him!"

Fung said that the spectators at the scene were probably the demonstrators who participated in the anti-independence rally in Tamar Park. "They did so because my wife was nicely dressed. We are not afraid of being identified. We did nothing wrong. They should not think that they can ruin my reputation."

(Oriental Daily) November 15, 2016.

Dried food store worker Mr. Chow witnessed the incident. He said that the vehicle made an illegal right U-turn on Wilmer Street in order to get to De Voeux Road West. The police officer stopped the car and issued the ticket. The woman began to curse out the policeman immediately. She said: "I have lots of money. You can issue the ticket. Please be fucking quick!" Chow said that the process took about 20 minutes, mainly due to interference from the woman. Chow said that he approved of what the policeman did. Chow said that this was a traffic hot spot, including a fatal accident. Chow praised the policeman for his restraint in not responding to the curses.

(Oriental Daily) November 15, 2016.

Fung Siu-wing said that he received a phone call at 2pm that a friend was hospitalized at Queen Mary Hospital. So he and his wife hurried over. At the time, his car was heading east. Under safe conditions, he made a U-turn traversing two white lines in order to head west. The policeman stopped him and issued a ticket. Fung said that a traffic ticket is a minor matter. His wife was impatient and asked the policeman to hurry up. Instead the policeman deliberately went slow. "He took more than 10 minutes."

Fung said that it was inevitable that his wife got "grouchy" because the policeman went slow. "We are not gentlemen. We are not saints. We were rude, even though we broke the regulations. But it is also true that the policeman went slow." He said that while traffic regulations should be followed, policemen should also be more considerate. "I thought that he was inconsiderate. His attitude was very bad." With respect to his wife becoming the target of Internet criticisms, he said that she only did this because she was extremely angry. "She normally does not have the best temper, but not worst either ... I told her that I support her to speak up on behalf of all Hong Kong drivers to carry out justice!"

Internet comments:

- The particulars of the male driver:

Former Hong Kong Daily News publisher Fung Siu-wing
Car license number: EC 9992

 The particulars of the woman passenger:

Chi Sing Properties director Ms. Lai Siu-wah

- Born in a Times of Chaos Facebook

(Is this the Hong Kong that we know?)
November 14 (Reader's tip) A couple who are active in pro-China circles were unhappy with the traffic policeman giving them a ticket. They cursed the traffic policeman out with a stream of obscenities. They said that they will lodge a complaint because the policeman took too long to write the ticket! Is this the place that we live in?

- How did the former publisher of Hong Kong Daily News become "active in pro-China circles"? And this guy thought that the spectators were demonstrators at the anti-independence rally and they heckled him only because his wife was nicely dressed.

- Was the Hong Kong Daily News a pro-China newspaper? Well, its forte was the analysis of horse races and soccer games for gamblers. Even after the newspaper went out of business, the horse racing section continues to be published on its own because it has a loyal readership.

- And people were saying that the NPCSC interpretation of the Basic Law Article 104 has destroyed rule-of-law in Hong Kong. No, the people who are destroying rule-of-law are those who say: "If the judge is wrong in court, you can throw a shoe at him!"

- You have the right to throw that shoe just as the judge has the right to throw you in jail.

- At the sentencing date, you will plead bipolar disorder or something. You will ask your lawyer to tell the judge that you are genuinely contrite, but once you get outside the courthouse, you will tell the press that you will do the same thing the next time.

- What would an American policeman do about this kind of aggression?

- Headlock, chokehold, suplex, batons, brass knuckles, pepper spray, stun gun, rubber bullets, taser, shotgun, water cannon, etc.

- She would have been shot the second that she stepped out of the car.

- Mr. Fung was going to Queen Mary Hospital. He missed an exit and therefore he made an illegal U-turn on De Voeux Road West. Mr. Fung admitted that he violated the traffic regulation because U-turns were not allowed there. Mr. Fung thought that because he was in a hurry to visit a hospitalized friend, the policeman should have considered the situation and let him go. Well, that would be rule-of-man and not rule-of-law.

- Whenever you have some piece of video about some detestable behavior, you immediately attribute that person to be in the enemy's camp. You strike first before your enemies do. The facts be damned!

- Strange! Usually the miscreant must be a mainlander, but not this one.

- The most "Yellow Ribbon" characteristic is that Fung supports his wife's behavior because "she was fighting for justice"!

- (SCMP) Journalist and his foul-mouthed wife were out of order. By Alex Lo. November 16, 2016.

Journalists have a well-deserved reputation for cursing like sailors. But it appears some of our wives are even worse, if a smartphone video clip that has gone viral on the internet is anything to go by.

The clip showed a woman verbally abusing a traffic officer after the vehicle her husband was driving was stopped and he was issued with a penalty for making an illegal U-turn on Des Voeux Road West.

The driver turned out to be none other than Fung Siu-wing, the former chief editor of the defunct Hong Kong Daily News.

His wife, whom friends and colleagues call Sister Wah, is well-known in journalism circles for her acumen in property investment. In other words, the couple are well-off, at least compared to many in the news business.

Throughout the incident, she cursed and swore at the officer, who calmly checked the car owner’s licence and registration before handing out a ticket.

The officer was a model of civility but Fung’s wife just went berserk, at one point jumping out of the car and poking her finger at him.

“Writing a few words took an hour. Are you crazy? Where are you when there are real robbers? Hiding?” she said.

“Bastard ... Go eat excrement … You waste taxpayers’ money. How much money do you earn a month? [You] deserve to be a [junior] cop for the rest of your life. Loser!”

She even cursed passers-by, who were outraged by her behaviour and defended the officer for doing his job.

Even since, the entire local press corps has been chasing the couple to find out more.

In one newspaper podcast interview, Fung admitted he committed the traffic offence but said it was a minor one.

“Every driver does it when he is in a hurry,” he said. “It’s not a big deal. We are model citizens making a minor offence.” He defended his wife, saying such shouting “was [an] everyday occurrence”, and accused the officer of being rude and unprofessional. He also accused some passers-by of “blindly siding with the police and hating the rich”.

But just by watching the clip, we can see the officer was calm and professional, at one point even advising passers-by to stop shouting at the woman.

If the officer is a model for the police, I hope journalism students won’t take after Fung and his wife.

- (Apple Daily)

Hey, it turns out that this couple is a pair of repeat offenders. This video was taken on September 30, 2015 outside Connaught Place, Central. Fung Siu-wing was being ticketed for illegal parking, and his wife was seated inside the car. What did she have to say? "You eat shit! I am telling you! Wasting the taxpayers' money! I have written down all your information. I am going to lodge a complaint!" The police officers stayed calm and told her: "Calm down."

Meanwhile Fung stood outside and was very cooperative. Lai then stuck herself through the window with pen and notebook in hand, ready to take down the police badge numbers. Fung told her to calm down. She kept calling the police "Trash!" The police officers kept calm and said: "Let her take down our numbers. We are not afraid. We are only carrying out our duty."

Lai continued to curse. A male police officer and Fung tried to talk her down. But Lai got even more excited and banged on the car.

With respect to this video, Fung said that he does not remember the incident. But Fung said that somebody must be picking on them. He said that his wife is excitable and her actions in this incident were "very poor" like an ignorant woman. But nobody is perfect. "We haven't killed anyone or committed arson." "I have lost face." He wants everybody to leave them alone and continue their serene lives of retirement.

- She just keeps forgetting to take her Risperdal ...

Thousands of people attended a pro-Beijing rally in Hong Kong Sunday in support of China‘s decision to effectively bar two pro-independence legislators from taking office, as fears grow of the city’s freedoms being under threat.

On Sunday rowdy crowds, waving Chinese flags, surrounded the government’s headquarters in a show of support for Beijing’s unprecedented decision, slammed by pro-democracy activists and legal experts as a massive blow to Hong Kong’s judicial independence.

Supporters chanted slogans such as “fight against Hong Kong independence, support the interpretation” at the rally, which was attended by pro-Beijing legislators.

“The cancer cells are those who are promoting Hong Kong independence… we will fight them to the end,” lawmaker Michael Tien told the crowd who cheered loudly in response. “China will never, ever tolerate the splitting of the nation,” Tien said.

Priscilla Leung, another pro-China legislator who attended the rally, said the lawmakers’ behaviour at the swearing-in ceremony “humiliated all of the Chinese people”.

Police said that 28,500 people attended the rally.

(SCMP) November 14, 2016.

Opponents of Hong Kong independence staged a show of force yesterday as thousands of people took to the streets around the ­government headquarters in one of the largest rallies of its kind in recent years.

At the rally outside the Legco complex in Admiralty yesterday, protesters also voiced their ­support for Beijing’s ruling last week that lawmakers who failed to take the Legislative Council oath “sincerely” would face ­disqualification.

The rally’s organiser, the Anti-Hong Kong Independence Alliance, said more than 40,000 attended the rally. The police said the turnout peaked at 28,500.

Attending the rally, Tin Shui Wai resident Mr Cheng, 72, said: “I was born during the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong, I was very angry about [Baggio Leung and Yau] ... I think those lawmakers who shouted slogans should be disqualified too.” Another attendee, who only identified himself as Mr Cheung, said he brought along his son “to let him know that Hong Kong must be governed in accordance with law”.

The alliance organiser Stanley Ng Chau-pei said the rally “showed the world that we are determined to safeguard territorial integrity”. He added that there were over 10,000 people who could not attend the rally because the venue was too crowded.

Internet comments:

- Well, there seemed to be many more people at this anti-independence/pro-interpretation demonstration than at the earlier pro-independence/anti-interpretation demonstration, either by the organizers' claims or the police estimate.

There can only be one explanation (Apple Daily):

It was predicted that at least 30,000 will attend and as much as 60,000. A married couple at the demonstration said that they came from Shekou (Shenzhen, China) whereupon a man named Zhou promised them HK$300 per person in compensation. The wife said: "You Hongkongers are getting $600."

In addition, 12-year-old student Ng said she does not understand why Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching would support Hong Kong independence. "They are obviously Chinese themselves." But she did not know what the Interpretation was, but she did not think that it destroys rule-of-law in Hong Kong. She said that she came with her family, but she does not know the name of the organization that they came with. She said that she can get $100 for coming, with a meal afterwards.

Because all the people in Hong Kong are pro-independence and anti-interpretation, the only people who came today must be paid actors.

- Aerial photos of demonstration size https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1274572795949987/

- HK$300 to come down from Shekou and demonstrate? Are we still living in the historical China of 40 years ago where everybody was dirt poor and made the same 36 RMB per month? At H$300 per day, you cannot even hire a street sweeper for the day in Shekou.

- HK$300 to come down from Shekou to Hong Kong, stand around for two hours and go back to Shekou? Are you kidding? The ferry from Shekou to the Hong Kong-Macau Ferry Terminal in Central costs HK$130. It will cost you another HK$130 to go home. That leaves you HK$300 - $260 = HK$40 for the day's work. And if you buy a plate of BBQ meat on rice and a cup of soda at Cafe de Coral, you will be losing money for the day.

- It is said that mainlanders were getting paid HK$350 per person while Hongkongers were getting paid HK$600. But of course travel costs are significantly higher for mainlanders, so that the real inter-regional differential pay is a lot larger.

- HK$350? Do you know that a parallel trader makes $1,200 in less than one hour for a single round trip between Luo Hu (China) and Sheung Shui (Hong Kong).

- At an average of HK$500 per person, this gig costs a total of $500 x 50,000 = $25,000,000. That's a lot for you and me, but very much smaller than a peanut relative to China's GDP. Besides, the government wants to stimulate consumer spending and this is a good cause to throw helicopter money at.

- During Occupy Central, everybody knows that the rate card was HK$800 for those who wore surgical masks over their noses and mouths and cover their eyes with plastic shrink wrap to charge the police line, and $500 for those who slept overnight in the tents. So Occupy Central had more money from the National Endowment for Democracy than these guys today got from the Central Propaganda Department.

- On one hand, it is upsetting to learn that people actually only need to be paid $300 when your underlings have been telling you that $1,000 was the minimum wage. On the other hand, it is understandable that your underlings must grease their palms along the way.

- Oh, there's 'evidence' on Whatsapp:


Sunday 300pm-530pm! $350 for 2-1/2 hours of work. Three hundred slots available. Whatsapp me if you interested!

Reply: So many slots for what?
Reply: What's it for?
Reply: Demonstration.

Reply: Demonstration?

- What kind of evidence is this supposed to be? No WHO, WHERE, WHAT, WHY and HOW at all. And I can forge this screen in a couple of minutes.

- Next Media has major problems as they expect heavy losses, with advertising and distribution revenues declining by 24.8%. Apple Daily is likely to raise its newsstand price to HK$8 per copy, which will reduce distribution (and hence advertising) revenues even further. But that is not even the real problem, which is fewer and fewer people want to read this rag filled with lousy creative writing stories.

- Three counter-demonstrators came to heckle the demonstrators.

Video #1: https://www.facebook.com/crumsynews/videos/1680809642209233/ The leader of the three counter-demonstrators yelled on the megaphone that he is a Hongkonger and not a Chinese. The demonstrators yelled back to his two masked companions: "Take off the mask! Take off the mask!"

Video #2: https://www.facebook.com/crumsynews/videos/1680809668875897/ The three counter-demonstrators want all Chinese persons to get out of their Hong Kong. Two policemen tried to protect the three from the angry mob screaming "Kill them!" and "Wastrels!"

- When the demonstrators reacted so angrily, it proves that they were not paid actors. At HK$300, nobody is going to react this way.

- Well, what upsets the "pro-democracy" crowd today is less so this demonstration than the YouTube video of Donald Trump's granddaughter Arabella reciting a nursery rhyme Little White Rabbit in putonghua. Hey, doesn't she realize that China is going to melt down any minute down and Hong Kong is going to be independent?

- Hey, it's a good thing too. Everybody knows that the White Rabbit is codeword for LSD. (P.S. LSD stands for Lysergic acid diethylamide, not the League of Social Democrats).

(New York Times) November 9, 2016.

When China took control of Hong Kong from Britain in 1997, it signed an agreement guaranteeing the city a high degree of political autonomy for 50 years under the “one country, two systems” doctrine. On Monday, Beijing took a step away from that commitment, putting at risk the political stability and rule-based governance that have made Hong Kong a free-market mecca.

China intervened to effectively block two politicians, Sixtus Leung, 30, and Yau Wai-ching, 25, who were elected in September to the Hong Kong Legislature, from taking their seats. Their crime? Last month, at a swearing-in ceremony, they displayed a “Hong Kong is not China” banner; Mr. Leung used a derogatory term for China in his oath, and Ms. Yau used an obscenity. They support independence for Hong Kong. Beijing’s leaders consider such support a national security threat that must be crushed.

Hong Kong is governed under the Basic Law, a charter negotiated by China and Britain before the 1997 handover. It ensured Hong Kong its freedoms, including an independent judiciary. It also gives China’s Parliament the right to interpret the law, but until Monday, Beijing had not issued its own interpretation of any clause in the Basic Law without being asked for an interpretation by the Hong Kong government or judiciary. In this case, it intervened to say that office holders must “sincerely and solemnly” take loyalty oaths.

Beijing’s unilateral move was a heavy-handed attempt to silence democratic voices. And it raised new questions about China’s willingness to reinterpret agreements for its own benefit.

In the past two decades, China has often tolerated activities in Hong Kong that it would not allow on the more restricted mainland. Even so, Chinese authorities have limited Hong Kong’s autonomy. In 2014 and 2015, negotiations over an electoral reform package deeply divided Hong Kong, provoking 79 days of protests. The reforms allowed Hong Kong residents to vote directly for their chief executive, the territory’s highest-ranking official, but Beijing refused to give up the power to vet candidates.

China’s tightening hand is undermining Hong Kong’s economic model. For 22 years, the city has been rated the world’s freest economy under a Wall Street Journal-Heritage Foundation index because of its rule of law and its open markets. Many multinational corporations locate there because of the independence of the courts.

China cannot afford to erode that credibility, especially when its own economy is struggling. Nor can China afford to stoke further unrest, which makes Hong Kong less attractive for investment and sends an ominous signal to Taiwan, a self-governing island that Beijing considers a renegade province. Activists like Ms. Yau and Mr. Leung are choosing to defend the rule of law; they merit strong international support.

On Tuesday, more than 1,000 lawyers marched silently through Hong Kong to condemn China and support the pro-independence lawmakers. Britain and the United States, which 20 years ago promised to hold Beijing to account, must do better than issuing mild statements urging China not to undermine confidence in the city’s autonomy.

Internet comments:

- (China Daily) November 7, 2016.

China said on Monday foreign countries should not intervene in Hong Kong affairs as foreign media voiced concerns following Chinese top legislature's interpretation of the Basic Law of Hong Kong. "Hong Kong is a special administrative region under the Chinese central government, and its affairs fall within China's domestic domain and should be free from foreign intervention," Foreign Minister spokesperson Lu Kang said at a regular news briefing. The pro-independence forces' attempt to separate Hong Kong from China is against the law and the people's will, and damages China's sovereignty and security and the interests of Hong Kong and foreign countries, the spokesperson said. Lu called on the international community to support the Chinese central government and Hong Kong government to safeguard national sovereignty, security and unity, and preserve the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.

- NYT: "Their crime? Last month, at a swearing-in ceremony, they displayed a “Hong Kong is not China” banner; Mr. Leung used a derogatory term for China in his oath, and Ms. Yau used an obscenity. They support independence for Hong Kong. Beijing’s leaders consider such support a national security threat that must be crushed. Hong Kong is governed under the Basic Law, a charter negotiated by China and Britain before the 1997 handover. It ensured Hong Kong its freedoms, including an independent judiciary."

As in the United States, the swearing-in ceremony is a pledge to defend the Constitution (Basic Law, in this case). Article 1 of the Basic Law is: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." Leung-Yau have said on many occasions that they do not accept this.

If Donald Trump is unable to say "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" or otherwise adds an obscenity ("Office of the Fucking President of the United States"), should he be "sworn in" by the Chief Justice? Or can he be excused because he was merely being naughty (as Martin Lee SC said in defense of Leung-Yau)?

- NYT: "Beijing’s unilateral move was a heavy-handed attempt to silence democratic voices." To say that it is not acceptable to pronounce "People's Re-fucking of Shina" in an oath of office is not to "silence democratic voices." There are plenty of other so-called pro-democracy legislators but they are all running away from Leung-Yau. It is not just Beijing that is not pleased; Chinese people everywhere are too.

- Here are some of the relevant U.S. laws:

 5 U.S. Code s7311 - Loyalty and striking

An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—

(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or

(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia.

 18 U.S. Code s1918 - Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government.

Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—

(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or

(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.

NYT: "They support independence for Hong Kong. Beijing’s leaders consider such support a national security threat that must be crushed." You can write the paragraph for the United States in view of the existing laws.

- A better defense for Leung-Yau was provided by Hong Kong Federation of Students Executive Committee member Cheung Sin-ying during a RTHK City Forum: (SpeakoutHK) "Oaths are very much outdated. Oaths are the products of tyrannies under Kings, Queens and God in history. "

NYT should inform the various levels of federal, state and level governments in the USA of this exciting development from Hong Kong so that they can eliminate all oath ceremonies henceforth.

- If you eliminate oaths of office, then the immediate question must be about marriage vows. If people are going to get divorced anyway (SCMP), what is the point of vowing to love each other until death does them apart? Just get rid of the hypocrisy already! It is just so archaic to think that you can trust anybody on anything. P.S. If wedding vows mean nothing, then do prenuptial agreements mean anything?

- Oh yes, you thought that you can trust Chu Hoi-dick and Lau Siu-lai when you voted for them. Look what happens now. Chu Hoi-dick showed up late for the Wang Chou vote. Lau Siu-lai pressed the wrong button to vote 'present' instead of 'for'. Then she read the wrong documents for a debate. Meanwhile her campaign promise of donating half her salary to help senior citizens has not been fulfilled yet ...

- Just get rid of the hypocrisy? Then why pretend that vetoing the August 31st resolution-based constitutional reform is going to bring universal suffrage with civil nomination immediately? Nothing of the sort will happen in the foreseeable future!

- (Wen Wei Po) November 18, 2016.

The top right photo showed that in 2007, City University Student Union President Leung Chung-hang leading new students to take an oath in a solemn manner. So it is not as if he has no idea what happens during oaths.

- Seven things that are wrong in the NYT editorial.

(1) The title is "China bullies Hong Kong". It insults both China and Hong Kong. The NSCPC interpreted the Basic Law in order to defend the dignity of all Chinese around the world and ban independence elements from throwing bricks in the Legislative Council. What is wrong with that? Where is the bullying?

(2) The choice of the accompanying photo was prejudicial. They showed Leung Chung-hang being subdued by the security guards.

They did not show Leung and his gang charging the security guards like hooligans, causing multiple injuries.

(3) Leung-Yau's oath enraged Chinese people all over the world. But NYT glossed over this lightly with "Leung used a derogatory term for China" and "Yau used an obscenity."
This is risible!
Was it just a derogatory term? It denigrates the tens of millions of Chinese people who were killed by the Japanese.
Was it just an obscenity? Would you like your country to be called "U Like Shxt of Amerikka"? Or your "Pat-shxt-dent" called "Donald Fxxk"? When your congressman "Condom-man" takes the oath by saying "I pledge allegiance to U Like Eat Shxt Amerikka", do you think that he can get out of the door alive?"
Leung-Yau are still alive and kicking, only because they were born in China.

(4) The entire piece was written in an arrogant tone with utter indifference to right versus wrong.

"China intervened to effectively block two politicians, Sixtus Leung, 30, and Yau Wai-ching, 25, who were elected in September to the Hong Kong Legislature, from taking their seats. Their crime?" Hey, you Americans, what kind of tone is that? We close the door and get rid of some vermin. What business is this to you!? You want to know what was their crime? Let the Chinese people all over the world tell you! It is called treason!

(5) "Hong Kong is governed under the Basic Law, a charter negotiated by China and Britain before 1997 handover." The Basic Law was written by a Hong Kong Basic Law Drafting Committee of 23 Hongkongers and 36 mainlanders, passed by the National People's Congress and proclaimed by the President of the People's Republic of China. The United Kingdom had nothing to do with it. The United Kingdom was out of loop back then, just as they are today. Therefore, the NYT framing is completely wrong. An agreement between nations is called a treaty. It is not a law. The Basic Law is Hong Kong's mini-constitution; the Joint Sino-British Declaration is just a historical relic during the transitional process to the 1997 handover.

(6) Not a single word was said about the ill effects of Hong Kong independence. This cannot be discussed in any sensible manner, because the Americans are the financiers behind the brick-throwing rioters and Apple Daily. They also produce the Viagra pills that pro-independence young people must have. Anyone who commits a crime obviously won't publicly admit it to a newspaper.

(7) A newspaper whose editorial is supposed to be the topic of the day for the editorial department can actually say that China has abandoned the Joint Sino-British Declaration by interfering in Hong Kong! Do they still think that the Brits have full (or even partial) sovereignty in Hong Kong?

- This is an editorial, so they are not obliged to do any fact-checking or otherwise pretend to be fair-and-balanced. If this were a regular report, the journalist would be obliged to ask the United Kingdom government about China's abandonment of the Joint Sino-British Declaration. Over the years after being asked many times, the United Kingdom government still have said nothing of the sort written in the NYT editorial.

More specifically, the ruling party in the United Kingdom won't say that the Joint Sino-British Declaration has been abandoned but the opposition party will. This is true regardless of who the ruling/opposition parties are. This is how it was when the Labour Party ruled, and this is how it is when the Conservative Party rules. The positions are attached to the roles. The ruling party tells what they regard as the truth and/or in the best interests of the nation, and the opposition party gainsays automatically. Such is democracy as practiced in western societies.

- NYT: "Until Monday, Beijing had not issued its own interpretation of any clause in the Basic Law without being asked for an interpretation by the Hong Kong government or judiciary."

(Wikipedia) "The NPCSC had also interpreted the Basic Law twice on its own initiative, without being requested by any Hong Kong public institution. The first interpretation occurred in 2004 and concerned the amendment of the election method for the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in 2007 and 2008. The second of such interpretation was issued in November 2016 on the substantial requirements of a lawful oath contained in Article 104 of the Basic Law."

Assigning a fact checker for five minutes of work (or just using Google->Wikipedia yourself) would be enough to catch this error. Of course, that won't read as well and so we can't very well allow the facts to get in our way of making our pre-determined argument, right?

- NYT: "Activists like Ms. Yau and Mr. Leung are choosing to defend the rule of law; they merit strong international support." NYT says that Leung-Yau are defending the rule of law. The Chinese around the world say that Leung-Yau are insulting them, and now the NYT says the two "merit strong international support."

- Leung and Yau violated the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance. Anyone who watched the video (and their oaths were performed in English!) can see that. But NYT says that Leung-Yau are defending rule-of-law?

- This is like praising someone who used the C-word for defending feminism. Or the N-word for fighting racism.

- The initial oath ceremony took place on October 11, 2016. The NYT editorial appeared on November 9, 2016. The NYT can be excused for publishing an ill-considered editorial immediately afterwards. But this is almost one month later and public opinion is now loud and clear. Those who defended Leung-Yau at first have now reversed positions. For example, James To (Democratic Party) said initially that this was mere humor; now he says that their behavior is deplorable, etc. But it is only the NYT that dares to tread now where angels have abandoned a long time ago.

- There is nothing wrong with being contrarian. People do it all the time to irk others. Unfortunately, this NYT editorial seems to be a show of total ignorance.

- The problem might be with this paragraph in the Joint Declaration: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be directly under the authority of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which are the responsibilities of the Central People's Government." What is the precise meaning of "a high degree of autonomy"? Is the glass half-empty or half-full?

- There are many other more pressing things that the NYT should be worried about. For example, (Bloomberg) "A Trump victory could lower global GDP growth by around 0.7-0.8 percentage points, according to our estimates, pushing GDP growth easily below our benchmark for a global recession of 2 percent global growth at market exchange rates in 2016/17," writes Citibank Chief Economist Willem Buiter.

- (Observer) The best counter to China’s growing power and influence would be to get the American house in order, to make the country function so that its model is credible in the face of Chinese soft-power competition.

- Other western media do the same sort of thing as NYT here:

(Observer) China just preempted the Hong Kong courts and prevented two elected candidates from taking their seats in the former colony’s legislature, because they modified their oath of office in a way that displeased Beijing.

And they selected this accompanying photo:

- Picking photos should be a relatively easy task here. Yau Wai-ching had seven changes of clothing on this night, so you can have your pick.

- (The Economist) At their oath-taking two members of a new party, Youngspiration, pledged allegiance to “the Hong Kong nation”, used the imperial Japanese pronunciation of “China”, and displayed a banner declaring that “Hong Kong is not China”. The theatrics by Sixtus Leung and Yau Wai-ching at times seemed puerile.

- Related link: Banned HK lawmakers speak to CNN.

- What happened to that famous Ap Lei Chau accent?

- After watching the interview, I suddenly realized that they were not just helping the Communists to come up with an Interpretation of the Basic Law, but they also wanted to ensure the enactment of a Basic Law Article 23. These two are causing the majority of the people of Hong Kong to hate them. What was originally just a silly matter is being extended by these two with no end in sight. As they pile on their losses, we hate them more and more. And when the Communists or their surrogates come up with an Article 23 proposal intended to stop such silly behavior, the majority of the people of Hong Kong will clap their hands.

- These two don't have any bright ideas and they don't speak well, so this was a lot of empty-headedness. Revolution comes through blood and sweat. But these two are unwilling to either bleed or sweat. They think that they can just talk their way through. Do they think people are stupid?

- When asked if they are to blame for "opening the door for Beijing to come in and get involved", they said that the victims are not to be blamed and that "only the ones in power can do this but not me and Yau." Even at this stage, they still do not understand that if they just took their oaths normally, there would not be an Interpretation of Basic Law Article 104 at all. They can't possibly think that an Interpretation was inevitable, regardless of what they did?

- (Kinliu) CNN asked a question ("opening the door for Beijing to come in and get involved"?) that no Hong Kong reporter would ever ask. This is a very logical question because it completely explains why Leung and Yau lasted a mere 12 days as legislators. CNN tried not to embarrass them further and did not press further along this line of questioning. But I would have liked to ask: "In the United States, would you say that the Clay mayor and the West Virginia development company manager were victims when they were forced to resign under public pressure after they called the First Lady an 'ape in heels'? If not, then why are you victims to say 'Re-fucking of Shina' to insult the Chinese people?"

- Not just western media but also western retailers:

(Daily Hive) November 11, 2016.

Nordstrom has been forced to stop selling a hoodie showing Japanese soldiers killing Chinese people during the ‘Rape of Nanking’ massacre in World War Two.

The Andrea Hoodie, produced by the Happiness clothing company, prompted huge outrage online and was removed from sale on Remembrance Day.

Writing on Nordstrom’s Facebook page, many customers called for a boycott of the chain and the brand, while others called the hoodie “horrifying.”

“Making money off cold blood war crime,” wrote Suping Guan‎. “We demand an apology.” “It was one of the most inhuman event in the history!” wrote Michelle Q. Zhang. “The Happiness Corporation creating such thing for sale is a big disgrace to our society!”

Responding to complaints on Facebook on Remembrance Day, various Nordstrom spokespeople apologized. “We’re so sorry for this,” wrote Shawn. “We have removed this product from our site and our teams are updating our process to ensure we do not offer similar products in the future.”

In an email to Daily Hive, Nordstrom’s public affairs manager Emily Sterken said she understood where the complaints were coming from and agreed the image was insensitive.  “We are truly sorry to anyone who was offended,” said Sterken. “We’re updating our process to look more closely at the type of products we’re offering and ensure we’re being sensitive to how our customers could perceive it.” Sterken said the hoodie was never for sale in stores, and has now been removed from Nordstrom’s website.

The Rape of Nanking saw more than 200,000 Chinese people, including civilians, raped and massacred by the Japanese army in then Chinese capital Nanjing in 1937.

The hoodie design shows a scene from the film City of Life and Death, which told the story of the massacre. The eyes of the soldiers and civilians are scrawled out in red. Superimposed on top is an image of a woman on a bench, looking away, and at the top, in scratchy red writing, are the words “Why indifference?”

Sterken said when Nordstrom began receiving complaints about the hoodie, they reached out to the original vendor, who said the meaning had been misinterpreted.

The design was originally created for Happiness by Andrea Marcaccini. Writing on his own Facebook page, he said the image was supposed to be a criticism of indifference to war. “I’d like to apologize with Chinese community if I may have hurt anyone’s feeling with this post,” wrote Marcaccini. “But this picture is actually against war and indifference. No one ever speaks of that event (China massacre) in the Western world. It is not meant to be offensive in any way, on the contrary it’s a protest against the bigoted and narrow-minded people. This is a demur kind of art, not a insult!”

- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés ou désirs.

- (Independent) And the fatwa on Salman Rushdie is still valid.

- And the US Department of State still doesn't get that this is a losing cause. Not even the most ardent local supporters of Leung-Yau are willing to stick their necks out to say that it was alright to say the oaths their way.

(SCMP) November 11, 2016.

US officials are treading a cautious line over Beijing’s move to disqualify two Hong Kong lawmakers seeking independence from China, as events unfold amid a highly volatile transfer of power in Washington.

On one hand the United States has called for restraint from the Chinese government and warned of repercussions for Hong Kong’s legal system after Beijing issued an interpretation of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution. But on the other, a senior Department of State official who spoke to the Post bluntly dismissed as “silly” the oaths by the two lawmakers, Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang. The pair pronounced China as “Chee-na”, a Japanese term deemed derogatory to many Chinese people.

On Monday – a day before Donald Trump unexpectedly won the US presidential election – China’s top legislative body passed a ruling effectively barring two elected Hong Kong pro-independence politicians from taking office.

“There are worries about the recent developments in Hong Kong,” the US official said, noting the Occupy protests of 2014, the disappearances of several Causeway Bay booksellers and the oath-taking saga. On the latter, the official said that “although it was a silly form of activity, there should be political freedom” as prescribed by the Basic Law.

Earlier in the week, Department of State spokesman Mark Toner said it was “disappointed” by recent developments and the US strongly supported the “critically important role” of the Legislative Council and independent judiciary in protecting the “one country, two systems” framework. Toner also urged Beijing, Hong Kong and all elected politicians to refrain from any actions that would fuel concern about or undermine confidence in the one country, two systems principle, a view echoed by the British Foreign Office.

In response, China’s Foreign Ministry said it hoped the international community would see that the decision reflected the will of the Chinese people.

- (CBS San Francisco) November 9, 2016.

Thousands of people demonstrated in Oakland for the second night of protests over the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. Tear gas has been deployed, an unknown number of arrests have been made and the demonstration has been declared an unlawful assembly after Molotov cocktails, bottles, rocks and firecrackers were thrown at officers in riot gear starting around 8 p.m.

The protest started around 5 p.m. Wednesday when hundreds gathered at 14th Street and Broadway chanting “not our president.” Members of the crowd carried signs saying “Pussy grabs back,” “Donald Trump is a rapist” and “Secede .CalExit.”

Police estimated that the crowd grew to roughly 7,000 people, saying that traffic in the area was being impacted and asking drivers to use alternate routes.

Tear gas has been deployed, an unknown number of arrests have been made and the demonstration has been declared an unlawful assembly after Molotov cocktails, bottles, rocks and firecrackers were thrown at officers in riot gear starting around 8 p.m.

A large fire was set in the roadway at the intersection of Broadway and 17th Street, and numerous others have been set nearby. Broken windows and spray paint have been reported at numerous locations throughout the downtown area and Chinatown.

Demonstrators have been arrested on suspicion of a number of different crimes, including assaults on officers, lighting things on fire, looting businesses and vandalism, according to police.

Around 9:15 p.m. police announced the closure of Telegraph Avenue from the 1700 block to the 2100 block. The California Highway Patrol also closed the Broadway off-ramp from northbound Interstate Highway 880 for more than half an hour.

As of 9:33 p.m. police could be heard telling protesters to disperse from the loudspeaker of a helicopter.

This was the second consecutive night of protests and vandalism to rock the city since Tuesday’s election. Occupy Oakland has already called for a third protest starting at 5 p.m. Thursday in Frank H. Ogawa Plaza.

On Wednesday afternoon Oakland police were still assessing vandalism on several businesses after about 250 protesters marched through downtown in a demonstration that started late Tuesday night and carried on into Wednesday morning.

As those protesters walked into traffic on state Highway 24, a woman suffered major injuries when she was struck by a vehicle, California Highway Patrol officers said.

The driver pulled over, but the protesters attacked her car and broke out a back window, according to the CHP.

A number of fires were set on Telegraph Avenue and Broadway, and firefighters were called in to extinguish them. That first protest had largely died down by 3 a.m., however.

- When the Hong Kong police use tear gas, it is "brutal suppression of freedom of assembly/expression." When the Oakland police use tear gas, it is "law and order."


Oakland today


Hong Kong November 2014

- (Williamette Week) November 11, 2016.

Portland Police have deployed stun grenades and rubber bullets on protesters near Pioneer Courthouse late tonight, after anarchists smashed the windows of shops in downtown and the Pearl District in protest of the Donald Trump presidency.

The use of so called "flashbangs"—loud explosive devices designed to stun and disperse crowds—came near midnight, and police said they were deployed as protesters threw projectiles at officers. At least one reporter, with WW's news partner KATU-TV, was hit by a rubber bullet, apparently fired by riot police.

- More international standards being shown for the Hong Kong Police to adhere to.

- There are plenty of questions that Hongkongers are asking about the American media and police, because these questions were regarded as universal standards in Hong Kong and therefore very important in understanding what happened.

Q. Did the police warn the rioters that they are in an unlawful gathering because they did not apply for a no-objection letter from the police beforehand?

Q. Did the police first raise a Yellow Warning flag and then a Red Warning flag before firing the tear gas?

Q. How many tear gas canisters were used in total? Will the City Council hold a public hearing about whether this number was excessive or not?

Q. Why were rubber bullets used immediately? Why didn't the police escalate gradually with

(police canines) ->
(baton charge) ->
(pepper spray) ->
(tear gas) ->
(rubber bullets) ->
(water cannons) -> ear gas
(live bullets/snipers) ->
(tanks) ->
(barrel bomb) ->
(sarin/chlorine gas) ->
(MOAB) ->
(B-52 carpet bombing) ->
(atomic bomb) ->
(nuclear bomb) ->
(Death Star)?

Q. Why did the Portland Police spokesperson use so many FUCK's in the press conference and then walk away without answering further press questions?

Q. Did Amnesty International/Human Rights Watch condemn the wanton violence by the police on citizens exercising their freedoms of assembly and expression?

Q. Did the American Journalists Association/Reporters Without Borders/Committee to Protect Journalists protest the case of the reporter being shot by rubber bullet?

Q. What was the race/ethnicity of those shot by the police? Black? White? Latino?

Q. Who shot whom? That is, did a white cop shoot a black man? Did a black cop shoot a white man?

Q. Will you wait 79 days before clearing downtown Portland of these "Occupiers"?

- With Donald Trump being president, there are all those signs of "California is not USA", "New York is not USA" ... What are the chances of a referendum for California/Oregon/Washington to become an independent nation?

(abc10.com) November 9, 2016.

California is now on the hot seat after many Californians took issue with last night's outcome, prompting the #Calexit movement.

After Donald Trump was elected as the 45th president of the United States, many Californians voiced their disapproval calling for California to secede from the U.S.

In 1961, McDonald County, Missouri existed momentarily and became McDonald Territory after attempting to secede from the State of Missouri. Also more recently, a proposed State of Jefferson involving northern California cities wanted to do the same from California.

So, secession movements are not an unheard-of action in the U.S., but for California as an entire state is it realistic or possible?

David A. Carrillo, who's the Executive Director of the California Constitution Center at the University of California, Berkeley Law, discussed if there's legal basis for this to be accomplished.

"There is no legal basis for a state to secede from the union." Carrillo said. "The U.S. Constitution (A4s3) has a procedure for adding new states or subdividing existing states--both require Congress to consent. But there is no procedure, at all, in the U.S. constitution for a state to secede." In Texas v. White in 1869, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot secede.

California's own Constitution (A3s1) states that, "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land."

Carrillo also discussed the probability and previous outcomes from other states. "It's extremely unlikely California could secede, legally or otherwise." he said. "A group of states tried that once. It ended very badly for them."

Reference: American Civil War (total: 785,000 - 1,000,000+ dead out of a population of 31 million)

- How much heart can pro-Hong Kong independence warriors take from the #Calexit movement?

Secession in the United States: In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the States could lead to a successful secession.

A 2008 Zogby International poll found that 22% of Americans believed that "any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic". A 2014 Reuters/Ipsos poll showed 23.9% of Americans supported their state seceding from the union if necessary; 53.3% opposed the idea.

Yes, some Americans support secession but there is no constitutional path to achieve this. Unilateral secession will mean that the other states will come after you. So the only way is to make sure that they can't come after you. For example, if you can gain control of some launch-ready nuclear missiles.

- Getting a launch-ready nuclear missile is not so easy for the Hong Kong valiant warriors. They are better with getting Viagra pills.

- Note that the U.S. Supreme Court said that if the other states agree to let you go, you can go. This means that Hong Kong can secede if they can get 1.4 billion Chinese people to let it go. So let's start the process going with calling them "Shina-jin". That should drive them so mad that they will surely want us to leave!

- But calling them "Shina-jin" can also upset them so much that they will never let us go. Instead they will keep us around and make our lives very very miserable.

- California's Constitution A3s1 sounds like Hong Kong Basic Law Article 1, "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." But Hong Kong is lucky in that the Constitution of the People's Republic of China is not the supreme law of the land in Hong Kong.

- In addition, Hong Kong Basic Law says: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies." Since the HKSAR has refused to enact such law, it is not unlawful to commit treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, theft of state secrets, etc.

In this sense, Hong Kong is lagging behind international standards. Reference: US Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115: Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities.

- If most of the judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal are Brits, then surely they will understand that Hong Kong must have a law like the one against High Treason in the United Kingdom.

Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Crown. Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; committing adultery with the sovereign's consort, with the sovereign's eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession. Several other crimes have historically been categorised as high treason, including counterfeiting money and being a Catholic priest.

- With due respect, the law is extremely prejudicial to Princess Di. While married to her, Prince Charles was consorting with Camilla Parker Bowles. So it was alright to commit adultery with the heir to the throne, but not alright to do so with his wife? Is there anyone out there who wants to file a judicial review? Or lodge a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commission?

- I wouldn't want to commit adultery with Mrs CY Leung (aka Lobster Head). I wouldn't want to commit adultery with CY Leung's eldest unmarried daughter either, because she should be locked up in Castle Peak Psychiatric Hospital for bipolar disorder. However, it seems that the youngest unmarried daughter is available for the taking.

- "Levying war against CY Leung and adhering to his enemies, giving them aid or comfort"? Been there, did that. If the British law on High Treason applies to Hong Kong, a lot of people would be locked up.

- Hong Kong Yellow Ribbons can export their Occupy Central/Umbrella Revolution experience to California:

- Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college system. What the United States need is to adopt the Hong Kong Umbrella Revolution's system of universal suffrage (one-person-one-vote) with civil nomination. If so, Clinton would be president now.

- And then the Trump supporters would be rioting, and we will have #TexasExit hashtags everywhere.

(China Daily Asia) November 7, 2016.

The Standing Committee of the twelfth National People's Congress on Monday adopted the interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China at its twenty-fourth Session.

Following is the full text of the document.

INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 104 OF THE BASIC LAW OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS

(Adopted by the Standing Committee of the Twelfth National People's Congress at its Twenty-fourth Session on 7 November 2016)

The Standing Committee of the Twelfth National people's Congress examined at its Twenty-fourth Session the motion regarding the request for examination of the Draft Interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China submitted by the Council of Chairmen. Having consulted the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has decided to make, under the provisions of Article 67(4) of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and Article 158(1) of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, an interpretation of the provisions of Article 104 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China regarding "When assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" as follows:

1. "To uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" and to bear "allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" as stipulated in Article 104 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, are not only the legal content which must be included in the oath prescribed by the Article, but also the legal requirements and preconditions for standing for election in respect of or taking up the public office specified in the Article.

2. The provisions in Article 104 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China that "When assuming office", the relevant public officers "must, in accordance with law, swear" bear the following meaning:

(1) Oath taking is the legal prerequisite and required procedure for public officers specified in the Article to assume office. No public office shall be assumed, no corresponding powers and functions shall be exercised, and no corresponding entitlements shall be enjoyed by anyone who fails to lawfully and validly take the oath or who declines to take the oath.

(2) Oath taking must comply with the legal requirements in respect of its form and content. An oath taker must take the oath sincerely and solemnly, and must accurately, completely and solemnly read out the oath prescribed by law, the content of which includes "will uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China".

(3) An oath taker is disqualified forthwith from assuming the public office specified in the Article if he or she declines to take the oath. An oath taker who intentionally reads out words which do not accord with the wording of the oath prescribed by law, or takes the oath in a manner which is not sincere or not solemn, shall be treated as declining to take the oath. The oath so taken is invalid and the oath taker is disqualified forthwith from assuming the public office specified in the Article.

(4) The oath must be taken before the person authorized by law to administer the oath. The person administering the oath has the duty to ensure that the oath is taken in a lawful manner. He or she shall determine that an oath taken in compliance with this Interpretation and the requirements under the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is valid, and that an oath which is not taken in compliance with this Interpretation and the requirements under the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is invalid. If the oath taken is determined as invalid, no arrangement shall be made for retaking the oath.

3. The taking of the oath stipulated by Article 104 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China is a legal pledge made by the public officers specified in the Article to the People's Republic of China and its Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and is legally binding. The oath taker must sincerely believe in and strictly abide by the relevant oath prescribed by law. An oath taker who makes a false oath, or, who, after taking the oath, engages in conduct in breach of the oath, shall bear legal responsibility in accordance with law.

This Interpretation is hereby announced.

(SCMP) November 10, 2016.

From just two, now up to 15 Hong Kong lawmakers could be at risk of losing their seats after two Beijing spokesmen catalogued eight types of “insincere oath-taking” and delivered a stinging rebuke against the city’s legal officials.

The warning came two days after China’s top legislative body intervened in the city’s legislative oath row in a move hailed by pro-establishment politicians but criticised by the legal profession as a challenge to the city’s judicial independence.

At a seminar in Shenzhen, Chen Zuoer, former deputy director of Beijing’s Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, lambasted the city’s prosecution and judiciary, accusing them of “not living up to people’s expectations” in defending breaches of national security and making it “almost cost-free to oppose and commit crime against Beijing.”

Asked to elaborate later, he said: “There were a lot of cases in the last two or three years. From the storming of the PLA barracks, to the Occupy protests, the Mong Kok riots, there were a series of such cases.”

Chen also chided the city’s legal profession for opposing the interpretation either because it “lacked or had a different understanding or it was using the law as a tool for political struggle”.

Speaking at the same seminar, Wang Zhenmin, legal department head of Beijing’s liaison office and a former law dean of Tsinghua University, said 15 lawmakers had “messed up” their oaths. He did not name them.

Among the 14 identified by the Post, all said they had taken their oaths solemnly and sincerely, and questioned Chen’s authority to cite categories of misconduct.

Chen, now president of the semi-official Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies think tank, also said there were “a lot of people” who did not meet the legal requirements.

He listed eight types of “insincere swearing-in” last month, such as “adding things to the ceremony ... or spending 12 minutes to finish the oath” – a reference to localist Lau Siu-lai.

Chen said: “With the central government’s interpretation, there are clear legal provisions to follow in tackling these acts that were insincere and not solemn.”

“All Chinese, all Hong Kong residents are watching, and will offer their strong support to Hong Kong’s executive, legislative and judicial branches as they exercise justice with the ‘sharp weapon’ provided by Beijing to restore Legco to normality and order,” he said.

Asked if he believed up to 15 lawmakers should be disqualified, Chen said the city’s authorities were better placed to decide. The fight against independence advocacy was “warfare that will be won”, he said.

Chen also chided the city’s legal profession for opposing the interpretation either because it “lacked or had a different understanding or it was using the law as a tool for political struggle”.

While the judiciary declined to comment, the Justice Department said it would “control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference” in accordance with the Basic Law.

The department had to consider all relevant laws before proceeding with prosecution. And while the end outcome might not be consistent with “so-called general public expectation” – which in itself could be diverse and “universal” – it had always handled all criminal cases in a fair, impartial and professional manner, it said.

Internet comments:

- (SCMP) November 7, 2016.

Professor Lau Siu-kai, vice-chairman of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies, did not give any names, but he cited that questionable behaviour included reading the oath in an extremely slow manner – a move made by Democracy Groundwork’s Lau Siu-lai, who took long pauses between each word in her first oath. She was sworn in last week after taking the oath a second time.

Lau Siu-kai said the current Hong Kong law on oath-taking was unclear, and the ruling by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee was necessary to define the process of oath-taking, the consequences of violation, and to establish the authority of the administrator of the oath.

He added that the move would not just target two localist lawmaker-elects in question – Youngspiration’s Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching – it would also prevent the advocacy of independence in Legco.

“After the interpretation, there may be other people who will raise judicial reviews to the courts to challenge these seats [of other lawmakers] in future,” Lau said Monday morning after a meeting with Zhang Xiaoming, director of the central government’s liaison office.

“It depends on how many people are willing to raise the judicial review, but someone is likely to do it based on the public’s indignation.”

Commenting on the Sunday rally against Beijing’s review of the Basic Law, Lau said Zhang expressed that the mainland “already had mental preparation”about such objections, “but it will not affect the decision on what must be done”.

- (Oriental Daily) (Hong Kong Free Press) The list of 'legislators' who failed the requirements of the Interpretation include:

Leung Chung-hang (New Territories East), for displaying props (such as a banner with the words 'Hong Kong is not China'), making an gesture (crossing his fingers on a Bible), saying that he pledge loyalty to the "Hong Kong nation", pronouncing 'China' as 'Shina', etc.

Yau Wai-ching (Kowloon West), for displaying props (such as a banner with the words 'Hong Kong is not China'), saying "“I, Yau Wai-ching, do solemnly swear that I would be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Hong Kong nation. And we will to the best [sic] protect and defend the values of Hong Kong") and also saying "People's Re-fucking of Shina", etc.

Edward Yiu Chung-yim (Architectural, Surveying, Planning and Landscape sector), for adding that he aimed to uphold procedure justice and continue the fight for universal suffrage, adding the phrase "for democracy and for Hong Kong's sustainable development."

Lau Siu-lai (Kowloon West), for putting a six-second gap between words in a manner that is definitely neither sincere nor solemn. On Facebook, Lau explained that she did so in order to disavow the contents of the oath and its system.

Nathan Law Kwun-chung (Hong Kong Island), for saying the oath in a fake accent. Then he added: "This sacred ceremony [of oath-taking] has become a tool for the authorities trying to suppress public opinion. You can even destroy this body [of mine], but you can never imprison my mind." When told to return to his eat, he refused.

Leung Kwok-hung (New Territories East) read the oath at an unusual pace so that the full names of China and Hong Kong became “China…People’s, Republic, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region” as the lawmaker swore to serve the territory. Leung said after the oath: “Withdraw the August 31 decision of the Chinese National People’s Congress. I want genuine universal suffrage. People will have self-determination with no approval from the Communist Party.” The lawmaker did not sign the oath. He tore up a prop representing the August 31, 2014 decision of the Chinese National People’s Congress because he said that the decision denied open elections for the chief executive.

Ray Chan Chi-chuen  (New Territories East) said before taking the oath: “Taking oaths is the affair of the Legislative Council. The government is not allowed to interfere in LegCo affairs.” After the oath, Chan said: “I am a Hongkonger. I want genuine universal suffrage. Filibustering is to resist evil laws. Leung Chun-ying, step down.”

Fernando Cheung Chiu-hung (New Territories West) of the Labour Party ripped up a Basic Law prop after taking his oath.

Eddie Chu Hoi-dick (New Territories West), for adding "Democratic self-determination! Tyranny must perish! Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen must not be the president [of the Legislative Council."

Helen Wong Pik-wan (Kowloon West) said: “Retract the August 31 decision of the Chinese National People’s Congress. The Water Supplies Department must examine all water supply in Hong Kong.”

Lam Cheuk-ting (New Territories East) said: “Combat corruption. ‘CY Wolf’ step down.”

Shiu Ka-chung (Social Welfare sector), for banging a drum and saying “Umbrella Movement might have ended but it did not collapse. We will put up resistance. We are back.”

- There are more legislators:

Andrew Wan Siu-kin (New Territories West): In pronouncing the The People's Republic of China, he introduced a gap between Republic and the rest of the term.

Kwong Chun-yu (District Council II): Adding "Hong Kong is the home field of the people of Hong Kong. We will not forget our original intentions. I want genuine universal suffrage. People of Hong Kong, add oil."

Cheng Chung-tai (New Territories West): Declaring before taking the oath that there is no point in refusing to take the oath. After saying the oath, he added: "New constitution from everybody, a new charter. Hong Kong people first, long live Hong Kong!"

- Wang Zhenmin reviewed the history of such incidents. Prior to 2004, this had never happened. In 2004, one legislator (Leung Kwok-hung) changed his oath and also lost his judicial review. In 2012, there were 5 cases. In 2016, there were 15 cases. Do you spot a trend? Do you see the copycat effect?

- (Oriental Daily) November 8, 2016.

Fourteen seats may be open, including Cheng Chung-tai (New Territories West) and Kwong Chun-yu (District Council II) too. This means 11 geographical constituencies; 2 functional constituencies and 1 District Council II constituency.

According to the Basic Law, major proposals such as constitutional reform, impeachment of the Chief Executive and expulsion of legislators require 2/3 majority. If there are 70 seats in total, then at least 24 is required to veto such proposals. At present, the non-establishment camp has 30 legislators. They may wind up having fewer than 24 after the by-elections.

In addition, the Rules of Procedure requires a majority in both functional and geographical constituencies to amend. So far, the non-establishment camp has managed to stall any attempts to amend the rules against filibustering because they have a majority in the geographical constituency. If the pro-establishment gains 3 seats out of the 11 in by-elections, they can change the Rules of Procedure and put an end to the filibustering.

- (TVB) Some of the nominated legislators gave a press conference to make clear that their oaths were valid ...

And we can add that the Pope is Catholic.

- Once upon a time, these people surrounded the Legco secretary-general who refused to validate the oaths of Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching and Yiu Chung-yim. They said that the secretary-general has no authority to decide what is valid or invalid.

Now these same people have rise up and said that since the Legco secretary-general has the supreme authority. Since he had previously accepted their oaths, their oaths must be valid.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) November 7, 2016.

Basic Law Committee Chair Li Fei has said that self-determination is the same as Hong Kong independence and therefore contravenes the territory’s mini-constitution. Analysts say that lawmakers who challenge China’s sovereignty will be at risk of disqualification despite having been sworn-in.

Li said that concepts such as national self-determination and the Hong Kong nation are “essentially” the same as Hong Kong independence, which would contravene the Basic Law which states that Hong Kong is an “inalienable” part of China. It would also damage the territory’s rule of law, social order and economy, he said.

Li added that pledging loyalty to Hong Kong and not China practically means support for Hong Kong independence.

Although Li referred to “national self-determination,” which is advocated by the Youngspiration party, there are concerns that advocates of “democratic self-determination” – such as the Demosistō party and independent lawmakers Lau Siu-lai and Edward Yiu Chung-yim – will also be affected.

- Everybody knows that "independence" is the redline for the Chinese Communists, as in "Xinjiang independence", "Tibet independence" and "Taiwan independence." Therefore many people have avoided the term "independence" and use the substitute term "self-determination" instead. In a way, "self-determination" may have its advantages over "independence." For example, China will continue to pay for military defense of Hong Kong. However, Li Fei is saying that "independence" and "self-determination" are one and the same.

- Time to march down to the China Liaison Office and hand a letter of petition which will be put away in the circular file!

- Donate more money more frequently to Demosisto/Youngspiration/Hong Kong Indigenous/Civic Passion/Lau Siu-lai in order to fight for independence/self-determination!

- Li Fei (deputy secretary-general of the National People's Congress Standing Committee) noted at the press conference that an Interpretation is not Legislation. A piece of legislation cannot be applied retroactively, but an Interpretation is a statement about something which exists before, now and after.

- Please note the statement: "No public office shall be assumed, no corresponding powers and functions shall be exercised, and no corresponding entitlements shall be enjoyed by anyone who fails to lawfully and validly take the oath or who declines to take the oath." This means that all those who have filed for and obtained the maximum budget allowances will have to cough it back! For example, they were paid $95,180 salary for the month of October already!

- (Silent Majority HK) Ten questions. By Francis Lui. November 11, 2016.

Q1. Does the National People's Congress Standing Committee have the power to make this interpretation?
A. This is a non-issue because Section 1, Article 158 of the Basic Law states clearly: "The power of interpretation of this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress." A small number of politicians and commentators chose to ignore this statement and insisted that the NPCSC only has the authority to interpret matters related to the Central Government or Hong Kong-China relations. Furthermore, they suggest that the Hong Kong courts should ignore this interpretation. So I have re-printed the relevant section to make this clear.

Q2. Is the interpretation enacting a new law surreptitiously in Hong Kong?
A. I have read the text carefully many times. The language is very careful and restrained, and follows normal reasoning. Before the interpretation was made public, a number of legal workers in Hong Kong have made similar interpretations of Basic Law Article 104. The NPCSC is merely clarifying the original intent of the law. Besides no country in the world would think that it is okay to make jokes or hurl insults during an oath of office, especially when the person is making it clear on Facebook afterwards that he/she disrespects the oath. It was clearly a false oath. The NPCSC has the duty of stating that this is against the Basic Law. Is an interpretation also an enactment of a new law? Various courts around the world have interpreted the constitutions of their countries and point out that certain laws are in conflict with the constitution. They recommend that the legislatures amend these laws and/or the Constitution. The NPCSC is merely saying that certain things are not allowed under the Constitution. It is up to the Hong Kong government and the Legislative Council to enact/amend laws if necessary.

Q3. Will the Interpretation affect the economy?
A. The market seemed more affected by the housing sales tax and the American presidential election. Some people raise the specter that the investors will lose confidence in One Country Two Systems and capital will rush out of Hong Kong. An analysis of capital flow will show that this is untrue. In 2014, US$ 70.9 billion of direct investment came from mainland China into Hong Kong. This is 24.5% of Hong Kong's GDP. In the same year, US$ 81.3 billion of direct investment went from Hong Kong to mainland China. This is 28.1% of Hong Kong's GDP. Where in the world does Hong Kong get the money to invest in mainland China? Without doubt, much of this is foreign capital and mainland capital. Foreign money is interested in mainland China, not in Hong Kong which is a midway station for the incoming capital. So if the destination of foreign capital is mainland China with its One Country One System, why would they care about any Interpretation of the Basic Law of Hong Kong? In addition, the US$70.9 billion coming from mainland China to Hong Kong is also an astronomical number. If foreign capital loses confidence in Hong Kong, it can easily be replaced by mainland Chinese capital. Given the size of the Chinese economy, this is just peanuts. Will the Interpretation chase away investors? On the contrary, investors hate uncertainty and they will feel better if the Interpretation can reduce social chaos.

Q4. What is the impact on Hong Kong politics?
A. If you read the text of the Interpretation carefully, the redline of the Central Government is that persons holding public positions will not be allowed to use the establishment (including the government, legislature and courts) as a platform to promote Hong Kong independence. If someone wants to promote Hong Kong independence in civil society, the Central Government may be unhappy but the Interpretation does not ban such activities. Even so, the covert and overt pro-independence politicians will be acting under a lot of restraint at the Legislative Council. Although the $95,180 monthly salary and miscellaneous perks are attractive, but it may be more effective to start a revolution with street fighting. Of course, nobody thinks that there will be fewer clashes inside the Legislative Council.

Q5. What is the impact of the Interpretation on the judiciary?
A. The NPCSC has the power to interpret, and it chose to do so at a time when the Hong Kong court is hearing a relevant case. Clearly the NPCSC has considered the costs before acting. The NPCSC showed that they do not fully trust the Hong Kong legislature and courts. At the very least, the NPCSC is wary of their effectiveness in solving problems. Trust is earned over time. Andrew Leung let Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching re-take their oaths at first. This is unconstitutional in the eyes of NPCSC. Many judgments of the courts over the past two plus years are unjust in the eyes of the people of Hong Kong and the Central Government. The phrase "The police arrest people, and the courts release those people" is popular in town. Many people say that the Central Government should let Hong Kong solve its own problems. But what the Central Government can see is that Hong Kong independence is growing in the environment of freedom in Hong Kong. In this case, the Hong Kong independence elements were not being stopped by the courts; instead they have entered the legislature and use public funds to promote Hong Kong independence. The Central Government is no longer going trust anyone who continues to preach tolerance and patience. Such being the case, the Central Government interpreted the law at the cost of hurting the Hong Kong judiciary. Hong Kong judges have their own political proclivities; if they want the people of Hong Kong and the Central Government to respect them, they need to examine whether their own political proclivities have been affecting their judgments. Woo Kwok-hing recently said that he would participate in Occupy Central if he were 50 years younger. This reminds us that our judges may be politically biased.

Q6. Why was the Interpretation made now?
A. If not now, then when? The Central Government paid a certain price when it made its Interpretation. It will pay an even higher price if it didn't. Because the two "elementary school chickens" holler their challenge loudly and people all over the world are upset by the anti-Chinese rhetoric, inaction will be regarded as tolerance, powerlessness and cowardice. Look at Andrew Leung who wanted to be magnanimous but ended up being besieged. From the viewpoint of the people of Hong Kong, the interpretation of Article 104 reduces the chances of invoking Article 18 (or even Article 14) of the Basic Law. Article 18 says that mainland laws can be used in Hong Kong in case of disturbances; Article 14 says that the People's Liberation Army can be sent into Hong Kong in case of disturbances. The Central Government and the people of Hong Kong do not want to see this happen. If Hong Kong independence becomes feasible (I don't believe that they will succeed in achieving independence, but I believe that they can be destructive), disturbances will surely take place. This Interpretation reduces the likelihood of disturbances. If so, it will be a good thing.

Q7. What are the prospects for One Country Two Systems?
A. I believe that keeping One Country Two Systems is still the best option for the Central Government and the people of Hong Kong. Among Hongkongers, I have met many who think that One Country One System won't be bad because mainland China is growing rapidly because they don't have the endless political squabbles and social stagnation in Hong Kong. Those who interact with mainlanders can easily sense that the position of Hong Kong is increasingly insignificant in the eyes of mainland citizens and the Central Government. Although sovereignty in Hong Kong is important, it is hard to say whether this is worth spending so much time dealing with it. Under such circumstances, it becomes important to defend One Country Two Systems and not just blindly provoking the Central Government. The demise of One Country Two Systems will affect the mainland only lightly but it will hurt the people of Hong Kong a whole lot more.

Q8. Does Hong Kong independence (overtly, covertly or disguised as "self-determination) have any room for development after the Interpretation?
A. I believe that the room has been restricted after the Interpretation. When Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching were staging their farce, public opinion were against their anti-China insults. This showed that Hong Kong independence is neither legally nor popularly supported. Certain smarter oppositionist or even covert separatists are now strategically severing relations with these overt Hong Kong independence elements. But people who live on the Internet only hang around their own kind and they have no idea that many other people share opposite opinions. They sincerely believe that Hong Kong independence represents the preference of everybody in Hong Kong.

Q9. Radicals criticize those who want the democratization of China for not having fought for a better Basic Law or more autonomy for Hong Kong. This Interpretation has made them feel even more so.
A. I think that these people are living in a fantasy world and detached from reality. In 2010, I pointed out that Hong Kong's GDP was 25% of China's GDP at the time of the handover. In 2015, Hong Kong's GDP is 2.9% of China's GDP. What is the message here? Suppose the Basic Law is enacted today instead of more than 20 years ago. What is the difference? You want to have more power in a negotiation. When Hong Kong's GDP was 25% of China, Hong Kong surely had more negotiating power than the 2.9% today. If the Basic Law was formulated today, the conditions will surely be worse than the one that we have today. So those who want to challenge the Basic Law and those who support them are fools.
I have said many times that the Hong Kong's GDP will inevitably decline relative to the mainland Chinese GDP. This does not mean that the people of Hong Kong cannot enhance their negotiating power. But such power does not come from confrontation; it is going to come from making Hong Kong play a substantial and irreplaceable part in the economic development of China.

Q10. What will the Central Government and the Hong Kong government do after the Interpretation?
A. They should be winning over and unifying the majority of the people of Hong Kong. Stopping a small group of radical Hong Kong separatists actually helps to unify the majority. It is up to the governments to determine how to carry this out.

- The Hong Kong National Party said that the NPCSC interpretation is against Common Law as practiced in the United Kingdom. But the power of the NPCSC is derived from Basic Law Article 158:

The power of interpretation of this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

The Basic Law should be amended to change Article 158 into: "The power of interpretation of this Law shall be vested in the Court of Final Appeal" because the only people that we can trust to be impartial are retired judges in the United Kingdom.  Such an amendment can be made via: Basic Law Article 159:

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress.

The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region.

Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views.

No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong.

If the legislation to eliminate the power of interpretation of the National People's Congress Standing Committee requires the consent of the National People's Congress, we might as well as go directly to armed insurrection. But the lawyers (Civic Party/Democratic Party) will want more discussions, white papers, judicial reviews, public consultations and academic symposia because they stand to make a lot of money from all the sides.

- (Oriental Daily) November 7, 2016.

The Hong Kong National Party said that Hong Kong's legal system is based upon the Common Law with separation of powers as guaranteed by the constitution in the United Kingdom. Therefore the Hong Kong courts are obliged to defend Common Law and the constitutional system of the United Kingdom.

The Hong Kong National Party said that any judge must refuse to accept anything derived from Basic Law Article 158 because it contravenes the Common Law. If any judge does not do so, then that judge as well as the entire Court of Final Appeal must resign immediately.

- Basic Law Article 8

The laws previously in force in Hong Kong, that is, the common law, rules of equity, ordinances, subordinate legislation and customary law shall be maintained, except for any that contravene this Law, and subject to any amendment by the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

This means that the Basic Law overrides over the Common Law, and not the other way around. The Hong Kong Legislative Council can amend the local ordinances such as the Oaths and Declaration Ordinance, etc, but not the Basic Law.

- (SCMP) Chinese University political scientist Ivan Choy Chi-keung warned it would be “unwise” for the authorities to expel half of the democrats. “Mainstream public opinion has shown disfavour towards Leung and Yau already ... If Beijing is seeking to disqualify 15 lawmakers, it means they are not just fighting independence advocates, but launching a full-scale purge of dissident voices,” Choy said.

- Short summary: Ivan Choy is advocating rule-of-man over rule-of-law for the sake of political expediency.

- Oh, yes, just today a Civic Passion member was sentenced to 160 hours of community service for assaulting two citizens inside the Kowloon City courthouse whereas the person who threw an egg at Joshua Wong got 2 weeks in jail. Is this rule-of-law or rule-of-man?

- Don't forget this other case: (Headline Daily) A 27-year-old chef used a cane and a vacuum cleaner to beat the 7-year-old daughter of a friend. Then he locked the girl up in a bathroom with two dogs and forced her to eat dog food. When she refused, he hung her upside down as punishment. Today, the judge sentenced the man to 12 months of probation/psychiatric therapy. Is this rule-of-law or rule-of-man?

- (New York Times) China Bullies Hong Kong. November 9, 2016.

When China took control of Hong Kong from Britain in 1997, it signed an agreement guaranteeing the city a high degree of political autonomy for 50 years under the “one country, two systems” doctrine. On Monday, Beijing took a step away from that commitment, putting at risk the political stability and rule-based governance that have made Hong Kong a free-market mecca.

China intervened to effectively block two politicians, Sixtus Leung, 30, and Yau Wai-ching, 25, who were elected in September to the Hong Kong Legislature, from taking their seats. Their crime? Last month, at a swearing-in ceremony, they displayed a “Hong Kong is not China” banner; Mr. Leung used a derogatory term for China in his oath, and Ms. Yau used an obscenity. They support independence for Hong Kong. Beijing’s leaders consider such support a national security threat that must be crushed.

Hong Kong is governed under the Basic Law, a charter negotiated by China and Britain before the 1997 handover. It ensured Hong Kong its freedoms, including an independent judiciary. It also gives China’s Parliament the right to interpret the law, but until Monday, Beijing had not issued its own interpretation of any clause in the Basic Law without being asked for an interpretation by the Hong Kong government or judiciary. In this case, it intervened to say that office holders must “sincerely and solemnly” take loyalty oaths.

Beijing’s unilateral move was a heavy-handed attempt to silence democratic voices. And it raised new questions about China’s willingness to reinterpret agreements for its own benefit.

In the past two decades, China has often tolerated activities in Hong Kong that it would not allow on the more restricted mainland. Even so, Chinese authorities have limited Hong Kong’s autonomy. In 2014 and 2015, negotiations over an electoral reform package deeply divided Hong Kong, provoking 79 days of protests. The reforms allowed Hong Kong residents to vote directly for their chief executive, the territory’s highest-ranking official, but Beijing refused to give up the power to vet candidates.

China’s tightening hand is undermining Hong Kong’s economic model. For 22 years, the city has been rated the world’s freest economy under a Wall Street Journal-Heritage Foundation index because of its rule of law and its open markets. Many multinational corporations locate there because of the independence of the courts.

China cannot afford to erode that credibility, especially when its own economy is struggling. Nor can China afford to stoke further unrest, which makes Hong Kong less attractive for investment and sends an ominous signal to Taiwan, a self-governing island that Beijing considers a renegade province. Activists like Ms. Yau and Mr. Leung are choosing to defend the rule of law; they merit strong international support.

On Tuesday, more than 1,000 lawyers marched silently through Hong Kong to condemn China and support the pro-independence lawmakers. Britain and the United States, which 20 years ago promised to hold Beijing to account, must do better than issuing mild statements urging China not to undermine confidence in the city’s autonomy.

- With Donald Trump being president, there are all those signs of "California is not USA", "New York is not USA" ...

- What are the chances of a referendum for California/Oregon/Washington to become an independent nation? Reference: American Civil War (total: 785,000 - 1,000,000+ dead out of a population of 31 million)

- NYT: "Their crime? Last month, at a swearing-in ceremony, they displayed a “Hong Kong is not China” banner; Mr. Leung used a derogatory term for China in his oath, and Ms. Yau used an obscenity. They support independence for Hong Kong. Beijing’s leaders consider such support a national security threat that must be crushed. Hong Kong is governed under the Basic Law, a charter negotiated by China and Britain before the 1997 handover. It ensured Hong Kong its freedoms, including an independent judiciary."

As in the United States, the swearing-in ceremony is a pledge to defend the Constitution (Basic Law, in this case). Article 1 of the Basic Law is: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." Leung-Yau do not seem to accept this.

If Donald Trump is unable to say "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" or otherwise adds an obscenity ("Office of the Fucking President of the United States"), should he be "sworn in"? Or can he be excused because he was merely being naughty (as Martin Lee says).

- Seven things wrong about the NYT editorial.

(1) The title is "China bullies Hong Kong". It insults both China and Hong Kong. The NSCPC interpreted the Basic Law in order to defend the dignity of all Chinese around the world and ban independence elements from throwing bricks in the Legislative Council. What is wrong with that? Where is the bullying?

(2) The choice of the accompanying photo was prejudicial. They showed Leung Chung-hang being subdued by the security guards. They did not show Leung and his gang charging the security guards like gangsters, causing multiple injuries.

(3) Leung-Yau's oath enraged Chinese people all over the world. But NYT glossed over this lightly with "Leung used a derogatory term for China" and "Yau used an obscenity."
This is risible!
Was it just a derogatory term? It refers to the tens of millions of Chinese people who were killed by the Japanese.
Was it just an obscenity? Would you like your country to be called "U Like Shxt of Amerikka"? Or your "Pat-shxt-dent" called "Donald Fxxk"? When your congressman "Condom-man" takes the oath by saying "I pledge allegiance to U Like East Shxt Amerikka", do you think that he can get out of the door alive?"
Leung-Yau are still alive and kicking, only because they were born in China.

(4) The entire piece was written in an arrogant tone with utter indifference to right versus wrong.

"China intervened to effectively block two politicians, Sixtus Leung, 30, and Yau Wai-ching, 25, who were elected in September to the Hong Kong Legislature, from taking their seats. Their crime?" Hey, you Americans, what kind of tone is that? We close the door and get rid of some vermin. What business is this to you!? What crime? Let the Chinese people all over the world tell you! Treason!

(5) "Hong Kong is governed under the Basic Law, a charter negotiated by China and Britain before 1997 handover." The  Basic Law was written by a Basic Law Draft Committee of Hong Kong and mainland persons, passed by the National People's Congress and proclaimed by the President of the People's Republic of China. It had nothing to do with the United Kingdom! The concept is completely wrong. An agreement between nations is called a treaty. It is not a law or a constitution!

(6) Not a single word was mentioned about the ill effects of Hong Kong independence. Of course, the Americans are the financiers behind the brick-throwing rioters and Apple Daily. They also produce the Viagra pills that pro-independence young people must have. Nobody ever takes out an advertisement in the newspaper to say that they have committed a crime.

(7) A newspaper whose editorial is supposed to be the topic of the day for the editorial department can actually say that China has abandoned the Joint Sino-British Declaration to interfere in Hong Kong!

- (China Daily) November 7, 2016.

China said on Monday foreign countries should not intervene in Hong Kong affairs as foreign media voiced concerns following Chinese top legislature's interpretation of the Basic Law of Hong Kong.

"Hong Kong is a special administrative region under the Chinese central government, and its affairs fall within China's domestic domain and should be free from foreign intervention," Foreign Minister spokesperson Lu Kang said at a regular news briefing.

The pro-independence forces' attempt to separate Hong Kong from China is against the law and the people's will, and damages China's sovereignty and security and the interests of Hong Kong and foreign countries, the spokesperson said.

Lu called on the international community to support the Chinese central government and Hong Kong government to safeguard national sovereignty, security and unity, and preserve the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. November 14, 2016.

Every time there is a presidential election, some people in Hong Kong would wake up to the fact that there is no one-person-one-vote system in the United States!

Young people may not know this, ordinary citizens may not know that, but people like Martin Lee, Alan Leong, Anson Chan, Audrey Eu, Emily Lau, James To ought to know, right?

Sixteen years ago, Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush in terms of the popular vote, but he lost in the electoral college and therefore did not make it into the White House. So even as this self-appointed world sheriff criticize the state of freedom and democracy everywhere else, they don't have it either. Ordinary Hong Kong citizens may not know, but those American godsons (=Hong Kong pan-democrats) must surely know.

According to the American government, the so-called international standard for genuine universe suffrage is an impossible dream for Americans. Their current system is inherited from history, and it is hard to change things because it will cause social rifts and blowbacks. Such being the case, then why are the Americans pushing "I want genuine universal suffrage" in tiny Hong Kong, which everybody knows will cause social rifts and blowbacks?

Now there is payback. After Trump was elected president, there are riots everywhere. California, Oregon, and even Silicon Valley want independence. Anti-Trump demonstrators block streets and commit assaults, vandalism, looting and arson. All this sounds very familiar.

The American police adhered to international standards and fired first tear gas, then rubber bullets. The pro-American pan-democrats (including Joshua Wong who was in Miami promoting Hong Kong self-determination) maintained complete silence about what the Evil American Police were doing. No reporter was able to ask Benny Tai for his thoughts on the Evil American Police firing rubber bullets at unarmed citizens exercising their freedoms of assembly and expression in acts of civil disobedience.

Two years ago, 89 tear gas canisters in Admiralty caused all of Hong Kong to cry for the poor students and the international community to join in. Today, Americans fighting for "genuine universal suffrage" are facing batons, tear gas and rubber bullets. Where are their Hong Kong fellow travelers? Are American lives worth less than Hongkonger lives? Trump won by getting 306 out of 538 votes in the electoral college. That number is less than CY Leung's 689 votes. Why don't you people deplore what is happening in the United States? Why aren't you going to America to support its people? Why aren't you donating money to help the people? Why aren't Hong Kong teachers and students on strike? Why are Hong Kong newspaper columnists not submitting blanks slots to express their rage?

When you were "persecuted", the Americans gave you all the help that you need; today Americans are in trouble themselves, so why aren't you helping them to show your gratitude? Or is it because you suddenly recognize right from wrong when it is happening elsewhere?

(Oriental Daily) November 6, 2016.

The Civil Human Rights Front started a demonstration this afternoon to oppose the National People's Congress interpretation of Article 104 of the Hong Kong Basic Law. Afterwards, some of the demonstrators headed towards the China Liaison Office. Youngspiration reminded those people to wear masks. By 6pm almost 1,000 people were on Queen's Road West near Queen Street. At 7:00pm they began to tell the police to open the road.

At around 7:50pm, a group of demonstrators tried to get past the police line and charge onto the roadway. The police displayed red flags and applied pepper spray at least seven times. At 8:30pm, the police applied another round of pepper spray.

League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng Man-yuen climbed up the police barricade and called on the demonstrators to charge onto the roadway. But he was subdued by the police and taken away in a police van. Ng posted on Facebook that he was arrested for obstructing the police.

Eventually the demonstrators broke through the police line and took over two westbound lanes of Connaught Road West. Some of them threw water bottles. Others used umbrellas to ward off pepper spray. Youngspiration legislator Yau Wai-ching cursed the police out. Legislator Leung Kwok-hung was sprayed and fell down on the ground. A masked Leung Chung-hang (Youngspiration) and Nathan Law (Demosisto) were present."

(SCMP) November 7, 2016

The event on Sunday had begun on a peaceful note, with organiser Civil Human Rights Front claiming that 13,000 participated.

Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching from Youngspiration, the pair at the centre of the Legco oath controversy, attended.

Most participants, many dressed in black and waving colonial-era flags, have adhered to the originally planned route and gathered at the Court of Final Appeal for a rally. Many were dressed in black and waving colonial-era flags.

At around 6pm Sunday, the organisers announced the end of the event, and police estimated turnout at its peak was 8,000.

But several participating groups including members of the Labour Party, the League of Social Democrats, Student Fight for Democracy, and Demosisto urged supporters to continue on a route to the liaison office.

Civil Human Rights Front convenor Au Nok-hin said he did not stand in the way of the additional plans.

“We do not mind that some groups appealed to participants to take part in other actions during the march as long as all of us have the same target: to oppose Beijing’s interpretation of Hong Kong’s law,” he said.

At around 7pm Sunday, some 4,000 people from the march, including Leung and Yau, made their way to the liaison office. Conflicts soon erupted between protesters and police near Western Police Station in Sai Ying Pun over the surprise detour.

The crowds urged the police to open sections of Des Voeux Road, the major thoroughfare leading from Central to Sai Wan, to the protesters, who had been confined to the pavement.

Police then used batons and pepper spray multiple times to stop the protesters from charging barricades near the liaison office and from occupying nearby Connaught Road West.

Many ran for cover, while others used umbrellas and protest banners as shields. Those sprayed in the face had their eyes rinsed by fellow protesters. Several people were then taken away.

The standoff escalated around 9pm when hundreds of protesters rushed onto Des Voeux Road West and occupied portions of it, bringing traffic on a section to a standstill.

Protesters also began to form a dense line of umbrellas and hauled rubbish bins and metal barriers to fence off officers. Some waved a blue banner that said “Hong Kong is not China” and shouted slogans advocating independence for the city.

A few demonstrators were seen digging out bricks out from the pavement to use as weapons. Beer bottles and bricks were also hurled at the officers.

At around 10.45pm, about 400 officers had been deployed to handle the protesters, with hundreds more on standby including elite “raptor” officers.

Organisers of the Sai Wan protest appealed to those at the scene to leave to prevent “sacrifices”.

However, several hundred continued to stay at the site. While some protesters started throwing bottles at police, the majority moved eastward on Des Voeux Road.

By 1am Monday, police continued to call in reinforcements, bringing the total number of officers to 700. Officers then chased after demonstrators to hasten their departure.

From 2.15am to 2.50am, police tried to get people off the main roads and onto the sidewalks. A few stragglers remained, including an elderly woman who sat in the middle of the road for another half an hour before she packed up and left.

At 2.55am, traffic partially resumed on Des Voeux Road. Cabs and light buses were seen driving into the area. At 3.05am, most of the police officers were dismissed. At 3.07am, traffic on Des Voeux Road resumed as usual.

(Ming Pao) November 8, 2016.

The four organizers -- Youngspiration, Demosisto, League of Social Democrats and the Political Reform Concern Group of the Tertiary Education Institutes -- led about 1,000 persons to head towards the China Liaison Office at 6pm. Some of them wore masks to cover up their faces. They took over the intersection of Des Voeux Road West and Western Street, and used garbage bins, bamboos, bus stop signs and other objects to build road blocks. The police raised the red warning flag many times, used their batons and applied pepper spray. The demonstrations used a formation of umbrellas to ward off the police.

At around 1030pm, the police asked the MTR to shut down the Sai Ying Poon MTR station. Then they cleared the intersection of Des Voeux Road West and Water Street plus the intersection at Western Street. The demonstrators were pushed towards the intersection of Des Voeux Road West and Western Street. In this way, the police prevented the demonstrators from running down the side streets. They called on the demonstrators to leave towards the east in the direction of Sheung Wan. The demonstrators retreated while changing "Hong Kong independence" slogans and using bus stop signs, garbage and other objects to build barricades.

At around 1230am, the police pushed forward again and pressed the demonstrators to retreat to the intersection of Des Voeux Road West and Centre Street.  Youngspiration legislator Leung Chung-hang was present, but the other legislator Yau Wai-ching could not be seen. There was a lull of more than half an hour. Leung was asked many times by the press about the next moves, but he did not give a definitive answer. At 2am, Leung walked among the demonstrators and said: "If there are too few of us, then we will be surrounded and arrested by the police just like during Occupy Central." He called the people to proceed in the direction of Sheung Wan/Central, but he did not tell them to leave. The police then pushed forward to Eastern Street. There was a more violent clash as people threw bricks and glass bottles at the police. The Special Tactical Team chased the demonstrators down to Bonham Strand West and everybody fled. The action was over before 3am.

Videos:

https://www.facebook.com/crumsynews/videos/1677602665863264/ Joshua Wong telling people to head towards the China Liaison Office

https://www.facebook.com/crumsynews/videos/1677644905859040/ League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng arrested by police.

https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1266186896788577/ League of Social Democrats chairman Avery Ng arrested by police.

https://www.facebook.com/crumsynews/videos/1677602665863264/ Oriental Daily: Police raise red flag and apply pepper spray

https://www.facebook.com/crumsynews/videos/1677676639189200/ Legislator Leung Kwok-hung was sprayed

https://www.facebook.com/crumsynews/videos/1677643882525809/ SocREC: People milling around and waiting for something to happen. What?

https://www.facebook.com/chuckyboyboy009/videos/1846142968966616/ Some guy dares the police to arrest him.

https://www.facebook.com/speakouthk/videos/748612971953451/ Shopping Revolutionary Auntie Chin Po-fun laid down in the middle of the road to block traffic and prevent thousands of Sheung Wan/Sai Wan residents from getting home.


Chin Po-fun and Eric "The Painter" Poon

https://www.facebook.com/speakouthk/videos/748645561950192/ "Pro-democracy" demonstrators attacked dissidents

Good News HK https://www.facebook.com/HongKongGoodNews/videos/1267224953351438/ Catalog of "How to Retreat" announcements

SpeakoutHK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVtvYUe-lBk&feature=youtu.be Catalog of localist/pan-democratic politicians on the scene

TVB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h1ocOZeNxE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDAQ47_FTHI (21:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBYIdRqeCJ8 (00:30)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeBUN5bFHGc (02:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZZQSxtmiUg (summary)

TVB USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO8Lah4H2XQ

Cable TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkn1kcWC7KM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9UPWLsJcbk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqyyTaorZdk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZcxZB9H1E4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0b-OJYuB8o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzliC0Y0niE (summary)

Viu TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz5wlSFnqyI

Epoch Times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWYfJ_P01Zk Arrest of Avery Ng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI-gpLc_W-8 Leung Kwok-hung got sprayed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_8ueVc_qEE Police use batons/pepper spray
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b99s9uPkcmQ Pepper spray victims
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNxHIBAIBJk Blocking streets

Nextplus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqQUL0sYQ-U Catalog of change of clothing by Yau Wai-ching

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily) November 6, 2016.

During the clashes, there was internal dissension among the demonstrators. Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Ray Wong was present at the scene. But he was seated the whole time without taking part in the physical action. He used his mobile phone to send out orders but he did not budge from his seat. As a result, he was surrounded by many of the demonstrators and cursed out. However, Ray Wong sat pat.

- Ray Wong is out on bail with a $250,000 bond posted personally by his mother. He was charged with incitement and participation in the Mong Kok riot on Lunar New Year's Day. If he is arrested today on similar charges, his bail will be revoked, the bong money will be confiscated and he goes immediately back into detention. The trial is scheduled to start in August 2017. So it will be a long wait!

P.S. The bail terms also include a curfew after midnight. So if Ray Wong is seen in public after midnight, he turns into a pumpkin.

- On his Internet talk show, Ray Wong has been talking about learning martial arts in order to strengthen himself and others in the resistance movement. Well, he can't deploy his newly acquired martial arts skills if he sits on his butt.

On his Internet talk show, Ray Wong also said they need to enter and win elections in order to get the money and other resources to acquire arms, ammunition, airplanes, cannons and missiles. He also spoke about forming a special attack squad. Of course, he needs money to do that and therefore you need to donate more money more frequently. Since his group is not registered, you will have to send your donations either to him personally or as cash. On this night, where the fuck are those arms, ammunition, airplanes, cannons and missiles? Held up by a traffic jam? Communication broken up because of a network busy signal?

- Famous Cantonese saying:
叫人衝、自己鬆、你流血、我領功
(Get others to charge while you run away; others bleed while I get the glory)

- Not the first time either: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTYnBuZTKuc Ray Wong tells people to block traffic on Prince Edward Road West while he watches from the sidewalk

- (TMHK) At around midnight, Legislative Councilor Leung Chung-hang told RTHK that the geography in Sai Wan was not ideal at all. Since he didn't want anyone to get hurt or injured, he wanted the crowd to retreat eastwards. Leung re-iterated that he will leave pm;u after he finishes what he is doing. He said frankly, "I am prepared to offer my life."

2:25am https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkw6Bgp3byA The police brought the Special Tactical Squad to the front line to press forward. Leung Chung-hang sprinted away from the police to catch a taxi home.

- Another video of the Running Man at Lance Yan's Facebook

Tonight Youngspiration's performance was enough to ruin them forever with both the radicals and the moderates. Leung Chung-hang appealed for the occupiers to retreat eastwards. People were unhappy. When they heard that someone was throwing bricks and chanting "Hong Kong independence", a large number of them retreated because that wasn't why they came.

Leung Chung-hang was interviewed in front of the riot police. But when the riot police stepped forward, Leung Chung-hang sprinted away to the disgust of the occupiers. They said that Youngspiration (which claimed that there is nothing that they would not do) is a bunch of cowards.

Tonight, it was shown that those who clamor for Hong Kong independence by actual action number at most a hundred. Most of those present in front of the China Liaison Office were "leftist retards." Only several dozen masked individuals were observed to throw bricks. Most of them liked to throw from behind the crowd, and sometimes hit the innocent people in front. As soon as the police inched forward, they immediately ran off. This is not quite a crowd which espouses valor and derides on Facebook the leftist retards for their peace/reason/non-violence/no-foul-language.

- Baggio Leung Chung-hang's Facebook

First of all, I must thank all the justice fighters who came out, plus the Hongkongers who pushed me and told me to head back to the rear. You should not have pulled me back from the heated fever of media/police attention into reality.

I am sorry that I really did not have a plan. I can only reduce the casualties to a minimum.

The battle is over. It is really not over. At least , the big battle that we are waiting for is not over. I will continue to fight to the best of my ability.

I ask you not to be discouraged before the battle even began. This is not what the Hong Kong Nation should be doing.

- How to interpret this? Leung Chung-hang is blaming his quick exit in a taxi to being pushed by other Hongkongers.

- Baggio Leung Chung-hang's Facebook, August 31, 2016

More reasons to vote for me because my legs are longer. If everybody needs ten steps to reach the Legco president's seat, I can do that in five steps.

Well, his long legs carried him faster to get to the taxi before anyone else ...

- (Facebook video)

Campaign ad: All the young people who stand here today are stupid and crazy, but we have never ever retreated!

News video: Leung Chung-hang and others running away from the Special Tactical Team.

Campaign ad: Each time that we choose to come out, we stand in the very front.

News interview of Leung Chung-hang: There are too many things that must be figured out. We have to understand the situation. In that direction, I don't even know how far it goes. Therefore I cannot answer you people.

Campaign ad voice: Can the identity of Hongkongers be given up? No. Do we have any space to retreat to?

Campaign ad voice: We rush up one after another. When one group falls, the next group takes over. We will continue to sacrifice ourselves because we know that someone else will take over the baton.

Campaign ad voice: Since we have gotten on this train, we will keep going.

- Who was that masked man?

- Did somebody piss in his pants?

- The Yellow Brick Road

- By 22:00, the show was being dragged down into ennui. Nothing was happening! But then people reported spotting the Special Tactical Unit getting ready to move. This is absolutely the best show in town! (see The Siege of the Central Government Headquarters)

- I was watching the live coverage on television (see TVB USA summary report). With due respect, the whole thing is unfathomable.

It started first with the demonstrators approaching the China Liaison Office building (which is across the police station). They were blocked. So Avery Ng said: "Let us jump over the barricades and go onto the roadway." Well, he does not explain why it was so essential to jump onto the roadway. And if the demonstrators do jump on the roadway, are they going to stay there for good or will they get back on the sidewalk a little bit later?

Then some guy in a yellow helmet appointed himself as the spokesperson for the demonstrators. He told the police that the demonstrators have to speak to Li Fei (deputy secretary-general of the National People's Congress Standing Committee and the HKSAR Basic Law Committee Chairman). Sorry, everybody knows that Li Fei is in Beijing attending the meeting to discuss the NPCSC interpretation of Article 104 of the Hong Kong Basic Law. A meeting was impossible.

Next he told the police that he the demonstrators have to speak to the Central People's Government Liaison Office Director Zhang Xiaoming. Sorry, everybody knows from the 7 o'clock television news that Zhang Xiaoming just gave a speech to the NPCSC about the disrespectful oath performance by Lau Siu-wai. That comment drew a round of applause from Zhang's audience. A meeting was impossible.

Since nobody is around tonight, who is being pressured by this demonstration? Would you mind telling me?

[Besides, even if Li Fei and Zhang Xiaoming were available, what will happen? You will read your demands: Rescind the NPCSC interpretation; let Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching take their Legco positions; implement genuine universal suffrage; end one-party rule, etc. They will tell you that these are not things that are within their power to promise as everything works in accordance with the laws. So this whole exercise is simply a photo-op for you to stand in front of the media and harangue Central Government officials.

Elsewhere you have said that the Chinese Communists are evil and perfidious, and you cannot trust them on anything. So why do you want to talk to them as if you expect that they will keep their promises?]

Anyway, what next? The guy in the yellow helmet said that the demonstrators want to approach the China Liaison Office building and get near the garage entrance. The police said that they will think about it. Later the police came back and said that they have thought about it and decided not to allow that.

[Why do you want to approach the door of the building? That cannot be sole purpose of the action tonight. All you want to do is to get close and then you will do something else. Why would the police let you?]

So the demonstrators went back into the huddle hiding underneath their opened umbrellas. When you open up those umbrellas, you can't see what is in front of you. So you are not going to be charging any police line. Instead they were just going to wait for the Blue Smurfs (=Special Tactical Team) to come in and club them silly! No wonder there were fewer than a dozen of them left after midnight.

Amazingly the police tactic in response to all this was: "Stand and wait!"  This was very frustrating to watch.

- If you want to throw bricks or even petrol bombs at the China Liaison Office, you can do so just about every day of the year. But you don't. Why so? Because you know that you cannot do real damage by so doing; you do it only because of the media exposure. For that, you need strength in numbers. A lone bomber on any other day will be caught and sent to the Castle Peak Psychiatric Hospital. A group of bombers is the Valiant Resistance Army of the Hong Kong Nation.

- (Kinliu) By Tsang Choi-On. November 8, 2016.

According to information, the police commander had about 700 officers at the scene. As always, the police are there to protect the lives and properties of the citizens. As always, the police have complete superiority in numbers, training and equipment. As always, the police are indecisive as they watched the rioters break the law right before in front of their eyes. The scene was both hilarious and infuriating to watch.

Those citizens who stayed up that night saw a soap opera on television. The anti-riot police kept reminding the rioters about the unlawful acts; the police warned the rioters that the police will enforce the law in a decisive manner. Periodically the police applied pepper spray. Then they paused to let the rioters rest and re-group for the next charge at the police line. This kept repeating itself. Viewers were perplexed as to what the police intentions were.

At around 3am, the rioters decided that they have earned their pay and so they dispersed in an orderly manner. The police rushed up to clear the scene and pretended that they have successfully dispersed the rioters. For the entire duration, we never saw the police commissioner or any senior police commander explain to us what their goals were.

According to media reports about this six-hour riot, the police arrested three men and one woman. These arrestees will be charged with obstruction of police business and failure to carry identification. No one will be charged with incitement and/or participation in rioting.

- (Oriental Daily) November 7, 2016. Here is what the litter bugs left behind.

- (SCMP) January 11, 2017.

Hong Kong police have arrested several activists over clashes and stand-offs arising between police and protesters on the eve of the central government’s ruling on the Legislative Council oath controversy last November.

Posting on its Facebook page on Wednesday morning, the pro-democracy Demosisto party said police had arrested its members Ivan Lam and Derek Lam “by going to their homes at 6am [Wednesday morning]” over “unlawful assembly”. It added the arrests related to “a civil disobedience action at the liaison office” that the party had co-organised with the League of Social Democrats, Labour Party and a university students concern group.

The league said on its Facebook page that police went to the homes of its deputy secretary general Dickson Chau and member Chan Man-wai on Wednesday to arrest the pair, but neither was at home.

The league said in its posting that Chan was at Sham Shui Po police station while Chau and concern group member Ip Chi-hin would turn themselves in at Wan Chai police headquarters at 2pm Wednesday. The league added that concern group member Lo Tak-cheong had also been arrested.

Oppose the Chinese Communists' National People's Congress interpretation of the law
Defend the independence of the Hong Kong judiciary
Date: November 6, 2016 (Sunday)
Time: 3:00pm
Assembly point: Southorn Playground
Route: Southorn Playground (Luard Road) to the old Legislative Council Building (Central)

Oppose Law Interpretation March and Assembly
The orignial letter of no-objection stated that the assembly will continue until 23:59.
After 23:59, it will be regarded as an unlawful assembly. Please pay attention.

Younspiration: Support after being arrested
5937-5441
If you are arrested during the march/assembly and legal aid, send the following information to the telephone above:
1. Your full name in Chinese/English
2. Your HK ID number
3. The police station where you are ad.
Statement of Confidentiality: All information about the case will be kept strictly confidential in the trust of Youngspiration and the lawyers in charge. Unless you consent, we will not provide any information about you to third parties.

(SCMP) November 6, 2016.

If mainland Chinese were to stage a rally in support of Beijing’s intervention in the Hong Kong oath-taking controversy, its “turnout would be bigger than” that of Hong Kong’s protest on the matter later Sunday afternoon, a senior central government adviser claimed.

Maria Tam Wai-chu, a Hong Kong deputy to the National People’s Congress and a member of its Basic Law Committee, was speaking hours before activists were set to march from Wan Chai to Central to protest against the NPC’s interpretation of Basic Law’s Article 104.

In Beijing on Sunday, Tam was asked to comment on the rally in Hong Kong to be held later in the day.

“It’s not a problem,” she said. “If China allowed people to support the interpretation, the turnout would be larger than Hong Kong’s turnout” at the rally, she said.

Tam played down speculation that the interpretation would sow dissension in the city. “With the rule of law, society is not deeply divided,” she said. “Some isolated clashes are bound to be triggered by different political aspirations.”

(SCMP) November 6, 2016.

For the second time in less than a week, Hongkongers opposed to an interpretation of the Basic Law by Beijing’s top lawmaking body are taking to the streets to voice their anger with the central government.

At least 2,000 people, many dressed in black and waving colonial-era flags, joined the protest event that began at 3pm Sunday in Wan Chai. From 3.30pm, the participants began marching from Southorn Playground to the Court of Final Appeal in Central.

The Civil Human Rights Front claimed 1,600 people took part in a similar rally it organised on Wednesday evening. Police put the turnout much lower at 750.

The event organiser is Youngspiration – the party to which the lawmakers at the centre of the oath controversy, Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, belong. It urged people to take to the streets and defend Hong Kong’s core values.

“While not everyone agrees with how Leung and Yau took their oaths, an interpretation [of the Basic Law] and the demise of the separation of powers will affect Hong Kong’s economic prosperity, stability as well as people’s livelihood,” its campaign leaflet read.

As protesters gathered on Sunday, the mood was subdued and police presence was light.

Internet comments:

- (Tribune News Services) November 5, 2016.

Tens of thousands of people demonstrated against the government, using words including "treason" and "criminal" to demand the resignation of the leader of the executive branch of the government. Organizers claimed 100,000 persons demonstrated, while the police estimated 43,000.

[By the way, this took place in Seoul over President Park Geun-hye's influence scandal. Just thought you might want to know.]

- 330pm, November 6, 2016. Southorn Playground, Wanchai, Hong Kong Island.

- See also SocREC https://www.facebook.com/socrec/videos/1548406065186319/

- South China Morning Post headline at November 6, 2016 8:22pm: ... 13,000 Hongkongers march against Beijing’s interpretation of Basic Law.

At least 13,000 people, many dressed in black and waving colonial-era flags, joined the event, which began at 3pm on Sunday in Wan Chai, according to organisers. Police put the figure at 8,000 however.

Who are you going to believe? The Civil Human Rights Front or your own lying eyes?

- (Oriental Daily) November 6, 2016. Maybe you think that this is a demonstration against the National People's Congress Standing Committee interpreting the Hong Kong Basic Law. But surely you could have guessed that it would be hijacked by pro-Hong Kong independence elements.


"Hong Kong is not China" and the British Lion/Dragon Flag for Hong Kong independence

At 3pm, almost 1,000 persons gathered on Luard Road near Southorn Playground. The group began to march at 330pm. When they passed by the High Court at around 4pm, they paused for three minutes in silent meditation.

When the group marched past the assembly area of the Defend Hong Kong Campaign, they were yelled at with chants such as "Hong Kong independence wastrels are a pile of trash" and "Localists canine thugs should be arrested and sent to jail." But the Civil Human Rights Front marchers ignored these people.

Demosisto said that they will take further action along with the League of Social Democrats and other groups. They called on people to support them.

- "Further action" by the "leftist retards" of Demosisto, League of Social Democrats and People Power? There is zero element of suspense here: they will march on to demonstrate in front of the China Liaison Office in Sai Wan. There will be several dozen people facing several hundred policemen, and they will throw paper airplanes at the building from afar. [Yawn]

- A better script would be to deliberately understaff and have only two female police officers there. Demosisto and friends will break into China Liaison Office and then ... oops, this is not supposed to happen and now they really don't know what to do.

- I can see the newspaper headline: "Fewer than 1,000 march in support of Hong Kong independence."

(SCMP) November 5, 2016.

Beijing will step into an oath-taking controversy and rule in the row involving two pro-independence lawmakers that has landed in a Hong Kong court, a Basic Law Committee member has confirmed after several days of speculation.

Maria Tam Wai-chu told the media on Friday the leadership of the National People’s Congress would move to seek an interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution, which says lawmakers must swear allegiance to Hong Kong as an alienable part of the People’s Republic of China. Several Beijing-friendly politicians expect the ruling to cover other allegiance-related issues that have emerged from pro-independence thinking.

The decision brought a furious response from the pan-democratic and localist camps, with the legal sector planning a “silent march” on Tuesday, the day after the interpretation is set to be endorsed by the NPC Standing Committee.

Speaking in Beijing, NPC deputy Tam said: “This was not the Hong Kong ­government or the chief executive requesting the interpretation... It is an important issue involving national unity and territorial integrity, therefore [the NPC’s leadership] took the initiative and made the request.”

Confirmation of the interpretation came a day after the High Court heard the arguments in a judicial review mounted by the Hong Kong government to disqualify two localist lawmakers, Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. Both used derogatory language to insult China during their oath-taking on October 12. The court has yet to deliver its judgment.

A Hong Kong government spokesman said it was notified by Beijing after the conclusion of the judicial review hearing on Thursday night that an item relating to interpreting Article 104 had been put on the Standing Committee’s agenda. It said the Justice Department had informed the court of the notification.

State broadcaster CCTV reported on Friday night that NPC chairman Zhang Dejiang had chaired a meeting at which it was agreed that a draft interpretation of Article 104 among other things would be scrutinised by the Standing Committee.

NPC deputy Michael Tien Puk-sun said the interpretation may also have implications for localist lawmaker Lau Siu-Lai and her retaking of the oath on November 3, and other pro-independence activists.

Separately, a candidate in Lau’s Kowloon West geographical constituency, garment maker Kwan San-wai, filed an election petition challenging her status as a duly elected lawmaker given her lack of “any will” to uphold the oath when she took long pauses between words when she read it the first time.

Former Legco president Jasper Tsang Yok-sing said: “It’s obvious the central government cannot tolerate the spread or any propaganda about Hong Kong independence ... I think the interpretation could define what kind of behaviour would be considered breaching the Basic Law or breaking up the country.”

Pan-democrat lawmakers urged Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to go to Legco to explain his stance on interpretation by Monday. Leung said yesterday he would communicate with lawmakers, but refused to answer other questions.

Tam dismissed the suggestion the move would destroy the city’s rule of law. “It won’t because it fits the criteria in Article 158,” she said, referring to the provision governing the Basic Law’s interpretation. “Whether to interpret it earlier or later is a matter of weighing between the heavier and lighter, not a matter of ... the rule of law.” Bar Association chairwoman Winnie Tam was not impressed. “It would inevitably hit the city’s rule of law,” she said.

Dennis Kwok, the legal sector lawmaker who called for Tuesday’s march, said the move would deal a huge blow to the city’s rule of law.

The Civil Human Rights Front and pan-democrats will hold a march on Sunday with the theme “Protect the rule of law”.

The two localists at the centre of the storm said they did not regret what they had done. “I am a lawmaker elected by the people,” Yau said. “I said from the start I would pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong people. Those in power are now twisting the Basic Law to suppress [us].” Baggio Leung said the interpretation would deliver “a lethal blow to the rule of law and the Hong Kong judicial system”.

Internet comments:

- Constitution of the People's Republic of China

Article 67

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress exercises the following functions and powers:

(1) to interpret the Constitution and supervise its enforcement;
(2) to enact and amend laws, with the exception of those which should be enacted by the National People's Congress;
(3) to partially supplement and amend, when the National People's Congress is not in session, laws enacted by the National People's Congress provided that the basic principles of those laws are not contravened;
(4) to interpret laws;
(5) to review and approve, when the National People's Congress is not in session, partial adjustments to the plan for national economic and social development or to the state budget that prove necessary in the course of their implementation;
(6) to supervise the work of the State Council, the Central Military Commission, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate;
(7) to annul those administrative rules and regulations, decisions or orders of the State Council that contravene the Constitution or the law;
(8) to annual those local regulations or decisions of the organs of state power of provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government that contravene the Constitution, the law or the administrative rules and regulations;
(9) to decide, when the National People's Congress is not in session, on the choice of Ministers in charge of ministries or commissions, the Auditor General or the Secretary General of the State Council upon nomination by the Premier of the State Council;
(10) to decide, upon nomination by the Chairman of the Central Military Commission, on the choice of other members of the Commission, when the National People's Congress is not in session;
(11) to appoint or remove, at the recommendation of the President of the Supreme People's Court, the Vice Presidents and Judges of the Supreme People's Court, members of its Judicial Committee and the President of the Military Court;
(12) to appoint or remove, at the recommendation of the Procurator General of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Deputy Procurators-General and procurators of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, members of its Procuratorial Committee and the Chief Procurator of the Military Procuratorate, and to approve the appointment or removal of the chief procurators of the people's procuratorates of provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government;
(13) to decide on the appointment or recall of plenipotentiary representatives abroad;
(14) to decide on the ratification or abrogation of treaties and important agreements concluded with foreign states;
(15) to institute systems of titles and ranks for military and diplomatic personnel and of other specific titles and ranks;
(16) to institute state medals and titles of honor and decide on their conferment;
(17) to decide on the granting of special pardons;
(18) to decide, when the National People's Congress is not in session, on the proclamation of the state of war in the event or an armed attack on the country or in fulfillment of international treaty obligations concerning common defense against aggression;
(19) to decide on general mobilization or partial mobilization;
(20) to decide on the imposition of martial law throughout the country or in particular provinces, autonomous regions, or municipalities directly under the Central Government; and
(21) to exercise such other functions and powers as the National People's Congress may assign to it.

- Basic Law Article 158

The power of interpretation of this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress shall authorize the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to interpret on their own, in adjudicating cases, the provisions of this Law which are within the limits of the autonomy of the Region.

The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may also interpret other provisions of this Law in adjudicating cases. However, if the courts of the Region, in adjudicating cases, need to interpret the provisions of this Law concerning affairs which are the responsibility of the Central People's Government, or concerning the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Region, and if such interpretation will affect the judgments on the cases, the courts of the Region shall, before making their final judgments which are not appealable, seek an interpretation of the relevant provisions from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress through the Court of Final Appeal of the Region. When the Standing Committee makes an interpretation of the provisions concerned, the courts of the Region, in applying those provisions, shall follow the interpretation of the Standing Committee. However, judgments previously rendered shall not be affected.

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress shall consult its Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region before giving an interpretation of this Law.

- Basic Law Article 104

When assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

- (Wikipedia) Hong Kong Basic Law

History of the interpretation of the Hong Kong Basic Law by the National People's Congress Standing Committee

1996 May: On its own initiative, the NPCSC issued explanations of the nationality law of the People's Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

1997 February: On its own initiative, the NPCSC ruled that 24 colonial-era ordinances contravened the  Basic Law.

1999:  The Hong Kong SAR Government asked the NPCSC to rule on the Right of Abode issue.

2004: On its initiative, the NPCSC interpreted the rules for universal suffrage for 2007 and 2008.

2005: The Hong Kong SAR Government asked the NPCSC to rule on the term of the new Chief Executive after the original Chief Executive resigned during his/her term.

2011: The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal requested the NPCSC to rule on the case FG Hemisphere Associates LLC v. the Democratic Republic of Congo, concerning whether Hong Kong has a qualified state immunity rule or an absolute state immunity rule.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) November 5, 2016.

There is speculation that Beijing’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) will issue an interpretation of the Basic Law to bar two Legco members-elect from taking office. This piece expounds the nature and impact of the NPCSC’s power of interpretation and argues that serious thought should be devoted to developing legal controls on Beijing’s powers of interpretation.

Article 158(1) of Hong Kong’s Basic Law provides that the power of interpreting that Law is vested with the NPCSC. Article 158(2) and (3) go on to say that the NPCSC authorises Hong Kong courts to interpret the Basic Law on their own in the course of adjudication, subject to a duty on the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) to seek an interpretation from the NPCSC, when provisions concerning the Chinese Government’s responsibilities would affect the judgment of the case.

On the face of it, Article 158 only grants the NPCSC the power to issue an interpretation upon reference by the CFA and in relation to provisions concerning the Chinese Government’s responsibilities.

In practice, however, Article 158(1) has been read to confer on the NPCSC a plenary and freestanding power of interpretation: it could issue an interpretation any time, with or without reference from Hong Kong institutions, and on any provision of the Basic Law. In the case of Lau Kong Yung v Director of Immigration in 1999, the CFA acknowledged the free-standing and plenary nature of the NPCSC’s power of interpreting the Basic Law.

It must be noted that the drafting of Article 158 of the Basic Law was inspired by the European Union’s preliminary reference procedure, which mandates member state courts to seek reference from the European Court of Justice when they have to interpret a point of EU law. A construction of the EU provision that corresponds to Article 158(1) to grant the European Court of Justice a plenary, free-standing power of issuing interpretations of EU law had been proposed by an EU jurist, but rejected by the European Court of Justice (See “Implementing China and Hong Kong’s Preliminary Reference System: Transposability of Article 267 TFEU Principles” by Cora Chan).

Back in 1999, the CFA’s acceptance of a reading of Article 158(1) to confer a free-standing, plenary power of interpretation on the NPCSC was heavily criticised as having ceded too much autonomy to Beijing.

Seventeen years on, the implications of such acceptance on Hong Kong’s autonomy have become clear. First, the power of final adjudication in Hong Kong is more restricted than that in most other common law jurisdictions in that it does not include the power of final interpretation of the constitution. Since an interpretation of the Basic Law may effectively dispose of the case, where it does, the power of final adjudication is vested with Beijing rather than the CFA – it will be open to the Hong Kong Government to extinguish the precedential effect of a court ruling by asking the NPCSC to issue a reinterpretation.

A caveat is that according to Article 158(3), an NPCSC interpretation does not affect “judgments previously rendered”. So, for instance, the first NPCSC interpretation, issued to overrule the CFA’s judgment in Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration in 1999, did not affect the applicants to the case itself. In other words, unless and until the NPCSC issues an interpretation, Hong Kong courts have full adjudicative power. For how widely the phrase “judgments previously rendered” has been construed, see the 2002 case of Ng Siu Tung v Director of Immigration.

More importantly, that the NPCSC possesses plenary powers of interpreting the Basic Law downgrades all guarantees in that Law from being legal guarantees to being mere promises the delivery of which is at the grace of the Chinese Communist Party: they could be taken away by the NPCSC in the name of “interpretation”; the Basic Law may not mean what it says.

The Basic Law has become a self-referential game. The NPCSC does not have a principled approach to interpreting the law. In line with Leninist legal tradition, the law is viewed by the Chinese Government as a mere tool to facilitate the Party agenda. Interpretations are issued to suit the political exigencies of the day. The NPCSC has used interpretations to add things to the law. To them, the line between an interpretation and amendment of the law is thin.

This is problematic from a common law point of view, according to which the law should serve to guide conduct. If interpretations of law can add new things to the law, the law would be a moving goalpost and would fail to guide. There would be no meaningful rule of law. Subject to my arguments in the final two sections herein, that the NPCSC is the ultimate interpreter of the highest law in Hong Kong means that insofar as the domestic constitutional order is concerned, there are no legal limits on what Beijing can do to Hong Kong.

This does not mean that as a matter of international law, Beijing can do whatever it likes to Hong Kong (it is bound by the Sino-British Joint Declaration to respect Hong Kong’s autonomy until 2047 as well as by human rights treaties it has signed up to). This also does not mean that there are no political constraints on Beijing’s exercise of power (certainly it would not want to trigger another Occupy Movement).

My point is simply that as things stand, subject to what will be said in the final two sections, at the plane of domestic constitutional law, Beijing’s powers over Hong Kong are not subject to any legal supervision. Hong Kong can enjoy separate systems, the rule of law, human rights protection, only to the extent that the Chinese Government exercises restraint not to tarnish them.

In my view, the division of power under Article 158 seeks to protect, on the one hand, judicial autonomy and the integrity of the common law system in Hong Kong and, on the other, China’s ability to control its sovereign prerogatives. (See Chan, cited above, for more detailed discussion of this point.)

The NPCSC would be considered as having exercised restraint in issuing an interpretation of the Basic Law if its issuance respects this ethos by satisfying three criteria: 1) it is issued in relation to Basic Law provisions that concern the Chinese Government’s responsibilities or the relationship between the Chinese Government and Hong Kong; 2) it is issued upon reference by the CFA or, in the absence of judicial reference, on a highly important and pressing matter – without an interpretation on which China’s sovereign prerogatives – namely, foreign affairs, defence, national unity and territorial integrity – would be endangered; and 3) the interpretation is an interpretation rather than an amendment of the law.

Of the four interpretations issued by the NPCSC so far, only the fourth (issued upon reference by the CFA in Democratic Republic of the Congo v FG Hemisphere in 2011) meets all three criteria.

The first interpretation, issued in relation to the right of abode in Hong Kong and upon request by the Chief Executive after the CFA handed down the judgment of Ng Ka Ling, fails the first two criteria and arguably the third as well.

The second interpretation, issued by the NPCSC on its own volition, adding two steps to the procedure for democratic reform, fulfils the first but fails the other two.

The third interpretation, issued upon the request of the Chief Executive on the term of a new Chief Executive elected to replace an outgoing Chief Executive whose term ended prematurely, arguably fulfils the first and third, but fails the second.

If the NPCSC were to issue an interpretation to stop Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-Ching from taking office, such an interpretation would likely fail all three criteria. First, the Basic Law provisions which the NPCSC could potentially peg an interpretation on, namely, Article 104 (which simply provides that legislators, judges and key figures in the government must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law and swear allegiance to the HKSAR) and Article 26 (on permanent residents having the right to vote and stand for election in accordance with law) concern matters that fall within Hong Kong’s autonomy.

Second, the interpretation would presumably be issued in the absence of judicial reference, and handed down in circumstances in which China’s sovereign prerogatives are not endangered: although Leung and Yau’s oath-taking behaviour might be offensive, still, their behaviour, or allowing them to become legislators, per se, do not endanger national unity or territorial integrity.

Third, it is difficult to imagine how simple and general provisions like Articles 104 and 26 could be construed as imposing concrete conditions on what constitutes proper oath-taking. It would be hard for the NPCSC to achieve its purpose without adding new content to the provisions.

The anxiety surrounding the prospect of the NPCSC using its nuclear powers of interpretation to “settle” the pro-independence saga reveals the fragile foundation of Hong Kong’s constitutional order: the highest decision-maker is not subject to legal controls. This is not such a big issue if political sources of control are effective. But the main source of political control available in democracies, i.e. elections, is not available vis-à-vis Chinese organs (compared to parliamentary supremacy in the United Kingdom).

While social pressure would remain a primary form of control, for autonomy in Hong Kong to be truly sustainable, it is important to explore the development of legal controls over the NPCSC’s powers of interpretation. Soft legal controls include: courts developing common law rights (the final interpretation of which are vested with courts rather than the NPCSC), rigorously applying common law methods of interpretation (e.g. resolving any doubt over statutory interpretation in favour of fundamental rights), and limiting the effect of an NPCSC interpretation (see e.g. Director of Immigration v Master Chong Fung Yuen in 2001). These are soft controls because the result that they yield could be overturned by legislation or by an NPCSC interpretation.

The CFA has attempted to develop hard legal controls as well. In Ng Ka Ling, the CFA boldly pronounced that it can strike down acts by the National People’s Congress (NPC) or its Standing Committee that violate the Basic Law. It did not retreat from this position in its subsequent “clarification”, issued upon request by the Hong Kong Government.

The question of whether Hong Kong courts have the jurisdiction to challenge an NPC or NPCSC act has not been discussed at length again in courts since then. But in my view – and I am aware that this is controversial – the possibility of courts claiming that jurisdiction and actually exercising it should not be precluded. Going forward, a possible hard form of legal control on the NPCSC’s power could be for Hong Kong courts to reassert that jurisdiction, say, by not enforcing an NPCSC interpretation that clearly, unarguably, constitutes an amendment of the Basic Law.

Article 159 of the Basic Law stipulates an onerous procedure for amending the Basic Law. The NPCSC should not be allowed to bypass that procedure through the backdoor of interpretation. Yes, the CFA in Lau Kong Yung did hold that Hong Kong courts are bound by an interpretation issued by the NPCSC, but surely, before giving effect to an interpretation issued by the NPCSC, the court first has to decide whether the NPCSC’s text in truth amounts to an “interpretation” of the Basic Law. There is space for future courts to reassert the jurisdiction to defend Hong Kong’s constitution against Chinese acts.

One might disagree with the form of legal control that is proposed here, but my point really is that for autonomy in Hong Kong to be secure, we cannot just rely on political controls on the Chinese Government – not when it remains a dictatorship. Legal limits have to be developed. This is an issue that has to be explored if an opportunity for constitution rebuilding arises in the run-up to 2047 or otherwise. Before that opportunity comes, perhaps courts in Hong Kong are in a good position to develop those limits. They control what the law is in Hong Kong (think HLA Hart’s rule of recognition; Hart, The Concept of Law (1961)) and are, compared to the legislature and executive, less susceptible to Chinese interference (see Basic Law Article 89).

- (SCMP) November 5, 2016.

All eyes are on the mainland’s top legislative body’s imminent interpretation of Article 104 of Hong Kong’s mini-constitution on Monday to settle the issues concerning oath-taking by two pro-independence lawmakers.

The Basic Law has been in place for fewer than two decades, yet the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, the local legal instrument to implement the Basic Law provision which requires lawmakers to swear to uphold the Basic Law and swear allegiance to Hong Kong as part of the People’s Republic of China, has a much longer history.

The ordinance, passed in 1972, can be traced to the Promissory Oaths Ordinance enacted in 1869. The Oaths and Declaration Ordinance, which is one of the subjects of the judicial review sought by the Hong Kong government in a bid to bar the two Youngspiration legislators from taking their seats, spells out the arrangements for oath-taking by top officials and lawmakers, as well as the consequences of failing to comply with the law.

The ordinance states that any person “who declines or neglects to take an oath duly requested” shall vacate or be disqualified from office. It also stipulated that if a lawmaker takes his or her oath at the first sitting of a Legco session, it shall be administered by the Clerk to the Legco, who is the secretary general of the legislature. The Legco president shall administer the oath-taking if it is taken at a subsequent meeting.

The ordinance and Article 104 of the Basic Law do not state explicitly the standard for pledging allegiance to the mini-constitution and the special administrative region. It is understood that it will be one of the key issues addressed by the imminent interpretation by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee.

Mainland officials’ wrath arising from the oath-taking controversy is not confined to two localists lawmakers’ use of derogatory language in the swearing-in ceremony. They are also unhappy with the process by which the Legco oath has been administered, according to a source familiar with Beijing’s line of thinking.

The ordinance and Article 104 of the Basic Law do not state explicitly the standard for pledging allegiance to the mini-constitution and the special administrative region. It is understood that it will be one of the key issues addressed by the imminent interpretation by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee.

Mainland officials’ wrath arising from the oath-taking controversy is not confined to two localists lawmakers’ use of derogatory language in the swearing-in ceremony. They are also unhappy with the process by which the Legco oath has been administered, according to a source familiar with Beijing’s line of thinking.

Philip Dykes SC, who represents Youngspiration lawmaker Yau Wai-ching in the judicial review, argued during the hearing on Thursday that the changes to the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance before 1997 were designed to anticipate a time when “there would be a complete change in the system as outlined in the Basic Law and showed the new demarcations between legislative, executive and judicial functions”.

Former Legco secretary general Pauline Ng Man-wah said it was a special arrangement for Tung to administer the oath taken by provisional Legislative Council at the ceremony to establish the special administrative region on July 1, 1997. Ng joined the Legco secretariat in 1990 and retired as its head in 2012.

Beijing set up the provisional legislature after the derailing of the “through-train” arrangement under which members of the last colonial legislature were to have become members of the first legislature of the special administrative region.

During their oath-taking on October 12, the Youngspiration duo pledged allegiance to “the Hong Kong nation” and pronounced China as ­“Chee-na”, a variation of the ­derogatory “Shina” used by Japan during the second world war. To add insult to injury, they displayed a banner with the words “Hong Kong is not China”.

Legco secretary general Kenneth Chen Wei-on, who oversaw the swear-in ceremony before Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen was elected president, said he could not administer their oath because it was inconsistent with the ordinance.

Chow said it would not make a difference who administer the oath. “Whoever oversees the swear-in cermony, he or she can’t stop legislators who intentionally deviate from the official version of the oath.”

“There is not much ground for mainland officials to complain. It is inconceivable that after the handover, the chief executive administers the oath by lawmakers,” she said.

- Internet photo

Rule of Law in Hong Kong is a matter for the people of Hong Kong.
So what the fuck are you "interpreting"?

- I stole your credit card to go on a spending spree. How I spend the money is a matter between me and your credit card. So what the fuck are you whining about?

- (Kinliu) By Chris Wat Wing-yin. November 5, 2016.

When an infant learns to walk, trips, falls and cries, the parents should slap the floor or table and said: "Bad floor! Bad table! You are naughty! You knocked my baby down ..."

So the infant assimilates the fact that it is always someone else's fault, even if that someone is an immobile floor or table.

Over the past weeks, whenever I see Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching smirk, glare and posture on television, their looks are exactly those of children who just quarreled with their parents, or school boys about to be expelled from school: "I did nothing wrong. Why should I apologize?"

So  after all these years we have failed to teach the young people how to reflect and apologize.

On November 3, Leung Chung-hang said in front of the courthouse: "If a certain group of people want to use the interpretation of Hong Kong Basic Law to hurt Hong Kong, then these people will be held fully responsible."

This same statement can easily be modified as: "If a certain group of people want to use the oath of office for Legislative Council to hurt Hong Kong, then these people will be held fully responsible."

On November 4, the National People's Congress stated the intention to make an Interpretation. Leung Chung-hang said: "The Interpretation will destroy our rule-of-law and legal system and betray the people of Hong Kong. I name the names: Zhang Dejiang and Leung Chun-ying will bear full responsibility. Their actions have stunned the world. Our Hong Kong Nation will pay them pay the price."

This same statement can easily be modified as: "The oath of office affair has destroyed our rule-of-law and legal system, and betrayed the people. I name the names: Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching bear full responsibility. Our Chinese Nation will make them pay the price."

On the same day, Yau Wai-ching said that "the actions of the Grand Nation are like those of hooligans."

This same statement can easily be modified as: "the actions of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching have shown us that even our honored Legislative Councilors can act like hooligans."

Reflection means the ability to stand in the shoes of others and look at ourselves. The rights and wrongs will be clear. Over the years, we have grown accustomed to hold people responsible. Confucius' student once talked about reflecting about oneself thrice a day. But we are always busy holding other people responsible; our fingers are always pointing at someone else, and we never evaluate our own selves.

Without the oath of office storm, there would never be a need to interpret the Basic Law. Everybody knows that. Yau Wai-ching said that "everything is part of the re-election campaign of CY Leung." So why did you build a grandstand for CY Leung's campaign so that Chinese people all around the world can join and applaud his campaign?

Congratulations! Today, the two of you are even more famous than Qin Hui. I am sorry for your parents and your teachers, because you have shown us the consequences of the worst possible parental upbringing and education. Parents should be careful not to follow their example.

- (Sing Tao Daily) November 4, 2016. Yesterday Youngspiration's Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching met with the press. They said that the brouhaha over the interpretation of Basic Law shows that the Chinese Communists are exploiting the affair to intimidate Hong Kong into submission. By spending public money over the past month, the Chinese Communists have destroyed rule-of-law, separation of powers and Legislative Council functioning. They said that the Chinese Communists want to solve a legal problem by political means.

The two refused to accept any responsibility for the storm. Yau Wai-ching said that the Chinese Communists are going to oppress the people of Hong Kong one way or the other and sooner or later. The system can only be damaged by those in power. Leung Chung-hand said that Youngspiration will support various kinds of assemblies over the weekend. They do not exclude any means of resistance.

- Aleppo yesterday, Hong Kong this weekend(?)

- And Beijing after the Hong Kong National Republican Army strikes back on Monday?

- Facebook of Claudia Mo (Civic Party)

- The citation starts in BL 158(3). It conveniently ignores BL 158(1) "The power of interpretation of this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ..." which means nothing to Claudia Mo.

- (HKSAR Government Press Release, December 3, 1999.

The Government welcomed the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) ruling today (Friday) which upholds the legality of the interpretation of provisions of the Basic Law (BL) related to the right of abode (ROA) by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), the Secretary for Security, Mrs Regina Ip, said this afternoon.

"Today's judgment also confirms that the power of interpretation of the Basic Law under BL 158(1) is in general and unqualified terms, not restricted or qualified in any way by BL 158(2) and BL 158(3)," Mrs. Ip said.

- (YouTube) Junius Ho, Legislative Councilor

On 12th October, 2016, Mr. Baggio Leung ("Leung") and Ms. Yau Wai Ching ("Yau") deliberately screwed it up when they took their oaths at the Legco. Both of them could have been my colleagues and as Legco members to serve the people in Hong Kong. But now it is over. Their chance is gone and gone with the northerly wind.

They chose not to comply with the law. They chose to display the slogan of "Hong Kong is NOT China" at the time of their taking the oath. Indeed, they meant to promote separatism in Hong Kong which is forbidden to do so. They used foul language to address the state again which is not permitted in law!

Worst still, they even humiliated all the Chinese people with a derogatory term of “Chee-Na”, which was a term generally used by the Japanese occupying force to describe Chinese as swines during the WWII. This brought back the hurtful memories and feeling of those elder generations who had gone through great pain and suffering in war of the last century.

In light of all those charges above and their grossly misconducts and unlawful behaviours, widespread criticisms and resentment were mounted against them in the society. On 18th October, 2016, the Chief Executive and his Secretary For Justice decided to commence a legal proceedings to remove them from their offices.

The storm does not stop there. According to the latest news, the gravity of the event has caused the grave concern of the Central People's Government who is now determined to seek the NPCSC to interpret the constitutional meaning and implications of an oath-taking under Article 104 of the Basic Law.

Given the current judicial review against both Leung and Yau, some people may ask if it would be appropriate for the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law at this sensitive moment.

Certainty, different people has different opinion. But it is generally accepted that the Leung and Yau's incident is an extraordinary one. It is not just a legal but also a political question which warrants for extraordinary treatment, i.e., NPCSC's input.

Based on the experience we have in Hong Kong and since the reversion of the sovereignty to China, we only have four interpretations of the Basic Law done by the NPCSC in nineteen years. Each interpretation was unique by its nature and had its own merits and justifications. All in all, it was in the public interest to do it.

As for the Leung and Yau's incident, it is generally believed that Hong Kong court would take benefit from the guiding interpretation by the NPCSC and as such, it can save a lot of time otherwise it could have been a protracted and lengthy proceedings all the way to the Court of Final Appeal. By then, the whole Hong Kong society would have to pay a sacrificing price for such a protracted constitutional dispute.

In the circumstances, we should warmly welcome the NPCSC's interpretation. Let's hope that the Leung and Yau's incident will go gently to its peaceful end and sooner the better.

- Lau Siu-lai's Facebook


Zhang Dejiang does not have the right in his own identity to add an item into the agenda for discussion by the NPCSC.
Zhang Dejiang does not have the right in his own identity to add an item into the agenda for discussion by the NPCSC.
Zhang Dejiang does not have the right in his own identity to add an item into the agenda for discussion by the NPCSC.
...

- If the chairman doesn't have the right, who does? Inquiring minds want to know ...

- It was a trick statement! Citizen Zhang Dejiang does not have the right to change the meeting agenda. Neither can Lau Siu-lai, Leung Chun-ying nor most people on the planet Earth. But National People's Congress Standing Committee chairman Zhang Dejiang has the right! In fact, he is the only person on the planet Earth who can set/change the meeting agenda. Even Xi Jinping must go through Zhang Dejiang.

- "Teacher" Lau Siu-lai is the one who needs the law explained to her. At first, she thought that it was acceptable to say her oath with 6-second pauses between words. She took a record-setting 12+ minutes to complete her oath compared to the average 2 minutes that others took. She had to be told that this was not unacceptable. In the re-take, she finished her oath in 2 minutes 11 seconds like any normal person can. Lau Siu-lai would save herself a lot of trouble if she had the law interpreted to her beforehand!

In defense, Lau Siu-lai said that she checked with the Legco Secretariat, and was told that she'll be alright as long as she reads out the full text. How was she supposed to know that she can't have six-second pauses between words?

- Baggio Sixtus Leung Chung-hang's Facebook

Live Free or Die


The battle is approaching
Have you all thought about what roles you want to take?

- My role is to stand on the sideline and fucking laugh at you.

- My role is to sell peanuts to the spectators in the stands.

- I know that I am going to be a spectator. What other role is there for anybody?

- You can also play the role of the fool who actually charges into the PLA barracks and get shot.

- Role? I know Leung Chung-hang's role is to play the stationary tree in the background on the stage.

- Just yesterday the Hong Kong Police announced that the 88th arrest for the Mong Kok Fishball Riot was made. The arrestee was an Open University student who got excited when passing by and dug up pavement bricks to throw at the police. After the arrest, the police searched his home and found the clothes that he wore that night.

- The maxim of Hong Kong revolution: Smart people use their mouths; dumb people use their hands.

- Regardless of the outcome of the court case, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching have already filed and gotten paid for the maximum office/IT expenses, to the tune of $834,393 each.

- (TVB) Basic Law Committee member Elsie Leung said that the Central Government has the duty to defend national sovereignty. "Everyone knows that Hong Kong independence has been going around for a while. They are allowed to freely express their views to the public. But if you do so within the Legislative Council and the government system, your impact will be a lot greater. If a Hong Kong legislator can promote Hong Kong independence in the Hong Kong Legislature, then does that mean that Xinajing People's Congress delegates can do so too? Tibet People's Congress delegates too? If the Central Government does not take a stance in Hong Kong, what do they have to say to Xinjiang and Tibet? The Central Government must be fair."

- (Apple Daily) Interpreting the Basic Law is going to result in a blowback from society. The Central Government assessed that public opinion (including even the supporters of Youngspiration) was against the actions of the two legislators. A pro-establishment legislator said: "It is wrong to have to interpret the law. The Central Government has to thank Youngspiration for creating such a huge supportive reaction."

- (TVB) Dennis Kwok (Civic Party legislator) said: "I do not see anything to interpret about the very simple Article 104. The NPCSC is interpreting this article, not to amend it. If they provide some explanation or add some interpretation beyond what is already written, then they are amending the article and not interpreting it. If they are amending the article, then it clearly exceeds their right to interpret."

- Basic Law Article 159

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress.

The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region.

Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views.

No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong.

Dennis Kwok is pointing out that the consent of two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council is required, and the pan-democrats have no intention of going along with any such amendment.

But if the NPCSC issues an amendment that is called an interpretation, what recourse do Denis Kwok and friends have? The Court of Final Appeal has ruled that the right of interpretation of the NPCSC is "general and unqualified" (Basic Law Article 158: The power of interpretation of this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.). There is no recourse other than armed insurrection.

- (Bastille Post) November 4, 2016.

I had dinner with some scholars and we talked about the Leung-Yau affair and the NPCSC interpretation of the Basic Law. The word around town is that Leung and Yau are following orders from the Central Government to cause trouble in Hong Kong. The scholars seemed to believe it.

My response is that we must not think the Central Government is so far-thinking. If that were true, we would have peace and tranquility in Hong Kong already. But suppose that it is true, then I have to ask for the reason behind this. The scholars said that this is because the Central Government wants to tighten its grip on Hong Kong.

I disagree with this. If nothing is going on, the Central Government would rather not pay any attention to Hong Kong or even Taiwan. In 1995, Lee Teng-hui became the first president in Taiwan to be elected by universal suffrage, and immediately showed his pro-independence colors. In 1996, China launched a huge military exercise.

However, Lee laughed at them for shooting blank bullets. Lee had received information that the Chinese missiles did not carry warheads. But by sneering aloud, Lee revealed that Taiwan has penetrated the Chinese military to obtain the information. The Chinese went back to plug their security leaks.

This showed that when China first went into reform in 1978, they were interested solely in economic development and barely investing in military capability. This was the reason why they were shooting blanks. But as pro-independence elements emerge, China began investing heavily to develop their military capabilities.

Hong Kong is in a similar situation. After the 1997 handover, the Central Government really did not want anything to do with Hong Kong. They would rather let Hongkongers run Hong Kong. They even restrict mainland government departments of all levels from engaging Hong Kong. In 2003, 500,000 persons marched in the streets. The Central Government hurriedly set up a Central Coordination Group for Hong Kong and Macau Affairs. In 2005, a new Chief Executive came in.

The basic policy of the Central Government is about economic development so that China can eliminate poverty and become a "moderately prosperous society" by 2020. The Central Government only reacted when independence movements emerged in Hong Kong or Taiwan. Therefore, Hongkongers who think that the Central Government is carrying all manners of devious plots in Hong Kong are not looking at this in the same way as the Central Government does.

In the present matter of the interpretation of the Basic Law, the Central Government really does not care about restricting the judiciary in Hong Kong. Instead, they feel that the Hong Kong independence movement is getting out of hand and the local government is unable to cope. Therefore, they are using the interpretation of the Basic Law to deal with the problem.

The interpretation of the Basic Law is merely the first step. The Central Government will continue to combat the pro-independence forces in Hong Kong.

- (Apple Daily) The three grand accomplishments of Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching:

(1) On October 12 during oath of office, they pronounced China as "Shina" and allowed the Hong Kong SAR government to stop them from assuming office in the name of justice for the Chinese people. Senior officials from the National People's Congress, the Basic Law Committee, and the Hong Kong-Macau Affairs Office of the State Council also chimed in to say that there is no separation of powers in the Hong Kong Basic Law. Thanks to the efforts of Leung-Yau, the authorities have ripped up the "high degree of autonomy" and "executive, legislative and independent judicial power" in Hong Kong Basic Law Article 2.

(2) On October 19, Secretary for Justice Rimsky Yuen said that there is no need for the National People's Congress Standing Committee to interpret the Basic Law. But now the National People's Congress Standing Committee has overridden the Hong Kong Justice Department to interpret the Basic Law. So Leung-Yau has managed to castrate the Hong Kong judiciary.

(3) On October 22, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching traveled to Taiwan as Hong Kong legislators to expound on the localist movement. Very few people in Hong Kong are working towards the so-called independence. But their trip lends support for the Central Government to crack down on Hong Kong independence alongside Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Inner Mongolian independence.

- Given that Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching are dead meat, the more practical use of time is to prepare for the by-elections for their vacated posts. See, for example, (Oriental Daily) November 4, 2016.

Here is a more detailed analysis.

If the National People's Congress Standing Committee should interpret Basic Article 104 as each legislator-elect shall have one and only one opportunity to get the oath of office right, then there there will be by-elections in Kowloon West and New Territories East for the vacated seats of Leung and Yau.

The pro-establishment camp should be able to rally around one and only one candidate per district. Generally speaking, the pro-establishment camp think that they should make way for Wong Kwok-hing (Federation of Trade Unions) in Kowloon West. Wong was the sixth-place finisher in the District Council (II) race and has good name recognition. Meanwhile Tang Ka-piu (Federation of Trade Unions) ran a creditable race in New Territories East, and he may be a good choice there.

The pro-democracy camp won't be able to rally around one and only candidate. Youngspiration/Hong Kong Indigenous will surely field one candidate per district as the Plan C to Plan A Edward Leung/Plan B Leung Chung-hang/Yau Wai-ching. However, they will likely encounter Raymond Wong Yuk-man (Proletariat Political Institute) in Kowloon West. Wong lost to Yau Wai-ching by several hundred votes. In New Territories West, they will likely encounter Wan Chin (Hong Kong Resurgence Order) or Wong Yeung-tat (Civic Passion). These candidates compete for the same radical localist votes.

The traditional pan-democrats will probably not concede free passes to the localists. The reasoning is that the localists will probably lose in a head-to-head race against the pro-establishment camp, because the traditional pan-democratic voters will not vote for someone who calls them "Shina-jin." So why concede that seat to the pro-establishment camp? Why not let a responsible adult take over?

In Kowloon West, Frederick Fung (ADPL) used to be a Legislator for many years in this district but moved to New Territories West this year and lost. In New Territories East, one likely candidate is Gary Fan Kwok-wai, who used to be a Legislator last time but lost this time. Both political parties are presently not represented in the Legislative Council. They won't yield the way because this is their only chance to return to the Legislative Council. Also lurking there is Lee Cheuk-yan and Cyd Ho Sau-lan, many-term Labour Party legislators who also lost this time.

The mathematics is that the voters are divided into three segments: 45% pro-establishment; 40% traditional pan-democrats; 15% localists. A by-election is winner-takes-all/first-past-the-post. If all segments are represented with candidates, the pro-establishment camp wins if they rally around one and only one candidate.

- (Wen Wei Po) October 6, 2016.

Economic Times/Sky Post held an online poll on whether the National People's Congress should interpret the Basic Law on its own initiative. As of 5pm on October 5, 2016, 24,726 persons have voted. Of these 85% said YES. At first, the support level held steady at 95%. Yesterday the Civil Human Rights Front reported on the poll and asked people to vote against it. Localists also flooded the page. Even so, the number has only dropped down to 85%.

- (SCMP) By DAB legislator Holden Chow. November 15, 2016.

What disgraceful behaviour from Sixtus Baggio Leung and Yau Wai-ching in their oath-taking, with the use of derogatory words insulting the Chinese people. People have been seriously offended by the two legislators-elect, who appear to have failed to take their oaths in accordance with the law.

Given the unprecedented, drastic and exceptional circumstances, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee stepped in to interpret Article 104 of the Basic Law, asserting the mandatory requirement of pledging allegiance to the Hong Kong SAR of the People’s Republic of China and upholding the Basic Law.

As a member of the legal profession, I can understand why some fellow legal practitioners are reluctant to embrace such a decision. However, I equally believe that the central government has made a tough decision this time to settle the oath-taking dispute in an expedient way, thus ensuring the Legislative Council chamber can resume normal operations.

Thanks to the pan-democrats, who wrongfully helped to aid Yau and Leung, three Legco meetings in a row were brought to a halt. At the November 2 meeting, pan-democrats helped the Youngspiration pair resist security guards, and unfortunately a few guards were injured. If Yau and Leung are to be blamed for the saga, pan-democrats are equally responsible for the chaotic situation in Legco.

Since the NPC delivered its interpretation, the Legco chamber has, at least in some ways, been able to resume functioning. Had there been no decision, we would still have been stuck in a deadlock.

Secondly, from the central government’s perspective, the saga has escalated to a national issue and is more about China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Thus, the implication of simply condoning the provocative oath-taking misconduct goes against the very principle of upholding territorial sovereignty, not only over Hong Kong, but also other parts of China, and radicals advocating separatism in other areas of China might have followed suit. The central government had no choice but to take the initiative to reiterate its stance over the issue of separatism.

It is worth noting that, according to Article 158 of the Basic Law, the NPC has the right to interpret the mini constitution. In the Lau Kong-yung case judgment, delivered by the Court of Final Appeal in 1999, the court acknowledged the NPC’s general and unqualified power to interpret the Basic Law. This refutes opposition claims that the NPC interpretation of the Basic Law ruins Hong Kong’s rule of law.

Another interesting part of the saga was that Yau and Leung, despite their all-out efforts to deny Hong Kong being part of China and their Chinese national identity, seemed eager to acquire all the benefits and remuneration of their Legco position, from the Hong Kong SAR of the People’s Republic of China.

We should contrast this with the actions and beliefs of Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein in the UK, who advocated Irish independence. When Adams won a seat in Parliament, he was duly requested to take the oath and pledge allegiance to the Queen. Dismissing the United Kingdom, he refused to take the oath, and resigned his position straight away. Adams, who earned nothing from Parliament, would at least have earned the respect of constituents for his actions, whether or not they supported his political stance.

What sparks public repugnance for the two young localists here are their double standards and hypocrisy.

[601] "I Have Sworn My Oath!" (2016/11/02)

(Oriental Daily) November 2, 2016.

Chronology

11:00 The Legislative Council meeting begins. Lau Siu-lai took her oath. Legislators Leung Kai-cheung and Wan Shiu-kin filed a petition to form a select committee to investigate the payment by Australian company UGL to Chief Executive CY Leung.

11:07 Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching charged into the meeting chamber under the escort of legislators Siu Ka-chun, Chu Hoi-dick and Nathan Law. Many non-establishment legislators also left their seats. Legco president Leung Chung-hang demanded Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching leave to no effect. The meeting was suspended. Yau Wai-ching is removed from the meeting chamber.

11:23 Meeting resumes. Outside, Yau Wai-ching and legislator Claudia Mo Man-ching ram the door in try to gain entrance.

11:26 Leung Chung-hang refuses to leave. Once again Andrew Leung announced a second adjournment. The meeting was moved to Conference Room #1. Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching attempted to enter Conference Room #1. There was a clash. About 10 minutes later, Leung and Yau gave up and returned to their own offices.

11:55 Meeting resumes in Conference Room #2. Legislator James To applied to make a motion to adjourn all debates.

12:00 Andrew Leung announced a third adjournment in order to consider To's motion.

12:52 Meeting resumes. Andrew Leung denies To's motion and began the first Q&A.

12:55 Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching and about 10 legislator aides attempt to charge into the conference room. They clash with the security guards. There is a stalemate. Legislators Nathan Law, Chu Hoi Dick and Cheng Chung-tai watch the clash from outside the conference room.

13:07 Andrew Leung announces a fourth adjournment in consideration of personal safety.

13:17 Andrew Leung says that there is a clash outside the conference room, and therefore the Legislative Council is halting business for the day. Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching stop charging into the conference room. Several security guards were injured.

13:20 Uniformed and plainclothes police officers arrive at the Legislative Council. Emergency workers enter the conference room.

13:30 Three injured security guards were carried out on stretchers.

14:20 The police gathered evidence in Conference Room #1.

(SCMP) Lock them up: localist thugs have brought things to a new low with their mindless violence. By Alex Lo. November 4, 2016.

When I was a reporter, I had many occasions to interact with Legislative Council staff. Its security personnel were and still are the most courteous and helpful people around. Indeed, they are more like caretakers than security officers.

Journalists have always had a good rapport with them. They have a ready smile and greet the more familiar among us by name. We joke and chit-chat while waiting for important people to show up and give sound bites.

That is also why they are ill-equipped to handle people like Yau Wai-ching and Sixtus Baggio Leung Chung-hang of the separatist group Youngspiration and their thuggish friends. As a result, six security guards were injured in the mayhem on Wednesday. At least two of the guards are long-serving and I recognise them.

Anticipating trouble, the Legco president moved the meeting from the main chamber to a conference room. Yau and Leung promised in front of cameras not to gatecrash the meeting, then promptly tried to force their way in with the help of hooligans the pair identified as their Legco assistants.

They pushed and shouted obscenities at the female security staff. The six guards were injured in the confrontation.

Given the level of violence they faced, those who were injured should seek compensation. Also there will be no end to such disturbances unless Legco steps up security and brings in the police to deal with those localist thugs.

What has happened is the logical outcome of the antics of radicals like “Long Hair” Leung Kwok-hung and Raymond Wong Yuk-man with the screaming and throwing of objects in the Legco chamber. Baggio Leung and Yau are taking such disturbances and chaos to the next level. All the while, pan-democratic politicians like those from the Civic Party have been encouraging them to do their worst. Well, their actions reached a new low on Wednesday.

Now, some pan-dems are trying to distance themselves from the pair, saying the incident and injuries were “regrettable”, but they have yet to criticise them.

If those thugs are really assistants of the two, it means we taxpayers have been paying them. We have seen their faces on television. Police should arrest those responsible for causing public disorder.

It’s not separatism we have to worry about; that will always be a non-starter.

Rather, it’s localist-inspired hooliganism in the heart of our legislature.

Videos:

Apple Daily https://www.facebook.com/SinManSing/videos/688404094652503/

TVB News http://news.tvb.com/local/581959a56db28ccf71fba28c

NOW TV https://www.facebook.com/chankawairicky/videos/1118537611514934/

Compilation of news report of the charge at the conference room https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=z4x-8f2zV5o

Epoch Times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9TQgAeM_Rc Clash outside conference room

Internet comments:

- (Oriental Daily with video) November 2, 2016.

This news compilation showed

(1) 0:01 Yau Wai-ching racing into the meeting chamber, took out her personal megaphone and read her oath of office on her own. Legislators Chu Hoi-dick, Chan Chi-chuen, Nathan Law, Siu Ka-chung, Leung Kwok-hung, Claudia Mo engaged in scrimmage against security guards.

- Yau Wai-ching took out a piece of paper, read it out and promptly declared that she had been sworn into office in the presence of the Legislative Council president. Why not swear herself in as the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as well? And the President of the People's Republic of Shina, the President of the United States of Amerika and the Lord of the Universe all in one go?

- If this can work, then I am going to rush down to the Marriage Registry and pronounce myself and Chrissie Chau man-and-wife. She doesn't have to be there, and I don't need a priest/pastor, judge or lawyer to administer the wedding vow either.  As long as I say the words correctly, it is a done deal.

(2) 0:55 A second round of arguments take place in the front bench with pan-democrats Chu Hoi-dick, Siu Ka-chun, Leung Chung-hang and Leung Kwok-hung facing off against pro-establishment legislators whose seats are there. At 1:02 pan-democrat Kenneth Leung Kai-cheong (Accountancy constituency) joined in. At 1:19 the pro-establishment legislator Christopher Cheung Wah-fung (Financial Services constituency) launched a vicious, brutal attack against Kenneth Leung Kai-cheung, so powerful that the latter crashed to the ground.

(3) 1:42 Another scrimmage takes place outside Conference Room #1 between Yau-Leung and their aides against security guards.

- Violence should never be tolerated at the Legislative Council. Christopher Cheung must be prosecuted, convicted and expelled for his violent behavior against another legislator..

- Ahem, Leung Kai-cheong needs to watch Grandmaster Arjen Robben and learn some more about the art of diving.

- In detail, here is the Fight of the Century.

Leung Chung-hang walked up to Christopher Cheung and said: "You insult yourself as a Hongkonger, Pok gai'" Cheung retorted with "Pok gai". Leung Chung-hang yelled: "Let's duke it out!"

At this point, Kenneth Leung chimed in and condemned Christopher Cheung for using obscene language. He also told Cheung to sit down and shut up. While they argued, Cheung grabbed Leung's wrist and the latter fell down.

But Leung got up immediately with a mischievous smile on his face. So this was clearly a dive, and the pro-establishment legislators laughed at Leung for putting on act. Christopher Cheung then left the meeting chamber in the company of other pro-establishment legislators.

Christopher Cheung said Leung Chung-hang called him "Pok gai" first and it was natural for him to say the same thing back. He admits that he was not in good form today and that he should not have used obscene language.

- (Hong Kong Free Press) November 2, 2016.

In a clip from public broadcaster RTHK, after Leung exchanged swear words with Cheung, Cheung pounded the table. At the same time, Kenneth Leung joined in and told Cheung to sit down and stop swearing.

Cheung swore back and they continued pointing fingers at each other. Civic Party lawmaker Jeremy Tam Man-ho moved in to separate the two, but Cheung grabbed Kenneth Leung’s hand and Leung accidentally fell.

He was not badly hurt and was able to continue participating in the meeting.

- ... we can't be talking about the same incident, right?

- Kenneth Leung should file an assault of aggravated assault against Christopher Cheung given the power of the sneaky blow!

- Kenneth Leung told the press that he is trained in martial arts. When contact was made, Leung thought that if he stood his ground, Christopher Cheung would be pushed down to the ground. Therefore Leung decided to back off and fall down in order to lessen the impact on Christopher Cheung. What a guy!

- (NOW TV) November 2, 2016.

... Several minutes after Legco president Andrew Leung rejected James To's motion to debate the alleged National People's Congress Standing Committee interpretation of the Basic Law on the grounds that it was mere hearsay, Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching and several aides (including Ray Wong (Hong Kong Indigenous)) tried to force their way into the conference room. The security guards stopped them. During the clash, a female security guard was caught in between and screamed for help. But nobody listened to her.

Yau Wai-ching warned the security guards that she was going to sue them in court. Leung Chung-hang and security guards cursed at each other.

After more than 10 minutes, the security guards were retreating and falling down on the ground. But the clash did not stop. The security guards withdrew to the conference room. The meeting was adjourned by Andrew Leung.

The injured security guards were treated immediately by the two legislators who are medical doctors. Emergency workers took the injured security guards out on stretchers, including the female security guard who was given a neck brace.

- (Oriental Daily with video) November 2, 2016.

When Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching and others tried to enter the conference room by force, the security guards stopped them outside. People kept provoking the security guards. One female security guards had her hands near Yau Wai-ching's breast. Someone said: "Watch those hands! Don't molest Legislator Yau!" The female security guard yelled: "I am protecting Legislator Yau's breast!"

This caused an uproar in the crowd. Someone said sarcastically: "Your hands are the cause of Yau Wai-ching's breast being attacked." "Stop being security guards! You are corsets!" A male security guard yelled for people to back off because somebody was having trouble breathing. Another man said: "Why don't you back off, because there is plenty of space behind you!?"

When someone yelled "Somebody has just fainted," that man said, "Faint? Nobody has fainted. I don't see anyone."

- (Stand News) Legislator Elizabeth Quat said: "A female security guard said that she saw a female civilian thrust her breast at the male security guard. She wanted to prevent the male security guard from being accused of sexual molestation, so she used her hands to block. Because her hands were rammed hard many times, she is experiencing pain in her hands."

- (Oriental Daily) November 3, 2016.

Legco president Andrew Leung said that the incident was a case of organized violence. He reviewed the surveillance videos, and saw Leung and Yau leading more than a dozen legislator aides down in two elevators. When they arrived on the second floor, they shouted "One, Two, Three, CHARGE!" and charged. At the time, there were fewer than 10 security guards outside the conference room. They were punched and kicked by these 16 attackers. Most of the injured security guards suffered bruises and sprains.

- (Legislator Elizabeth Quat's Facebook) I just went with Legco president Andrew Leung to visit the six injured security guards at the hospital. They told us that the 10 of them were attacked by 16 individuals, including Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching and 10 legislator aides. These people punched them and kicked their knees, causing multiple injuries. One of the security guards will be hospitalized for observation.

This was a planned violent assault. Violence should not be used under any circumstances. There is no reason to kick and punch security guards. Legislators should know what the law is, and those who break the law should not be allowed to become legislators!

- The whole thing was a Communist plot! Whoever hired these uncles and aunties to cosplay security guards clearly wanted a resounding rout, so that they can justifiably hire a team of rugby players in the future.

- (Wen Wei Po) November 3, 2016. After the first adjournment, the meeting was moved to Conference Room #1. At that time, the reporters asked Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching whether they would break into the meeting room later. They said that they were concerned about the personal safety of the reporters and therefore they promise not to enter by force. Less than 4 minutes after the meeting reconvened, the two of them led many legislator aides (including Hong Kong Indigenous spokesperson Ray Wong) to attempt to enter the conference room by force.

Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching said that many legislator aides were injured or felt ill after the clash. They reserve the right to seek legal redress. They said that the Legco president and secretariat bears full responsibility for the injuries to the six security guards. Leung said that when someone issues the "unlawful order" to prevent legislators from attending a meeting, the security guards should know to make the right choice as opposed to carry out all orders.

Why did they promise one thing but did the opposite? Leung Chung-hang said that the Legco president had denied James To's motion for an emergency discussion of the Hong Kong government asking the National People's Congress Standing Committee making an interpretation of the Basic Law. As a result, they were dissatisfied and therefore they changed their minds.

- (Sing Tao) Leung Chung-hang said that they had planned to enter the conference room as quickly as possible. But because the security guards impeded their progress, several legislator aides were injured. Therefore Leung is reserving the right to start legal proceedings against the security guards for stopping them without justifiable cause. He said that things need not turn out this way, and he does not want the security guards to suffer. He said that the security guards should disobey the orders of their supervisor next time.

- The Legislative Council president has the authority to eject legislators from meetings for disorderly conduct. In this case, Leung and Yau are still only legislators-elect who have not been sworn in yet.

- The depraved indifference of Lai Siu-lai, Nathan Law and Chu Hoi Dick (foreground) to the injured security guards (background):

- Mirror, mirror, who is most concerned about the Legco security guards? Just look at who sent them a bouquet of flowers!

To: The security team at the Legislative Council
Signed: Alvin Yeung, Kenneth Kwok, Kwok Ka-ki, Claudia Mo, Tanya Chan and Jeremy Tam of the Civic Party

- There is no such thing as being most disgusting
There is a thing called being more disgusting.
The pan-democrats arranged for their aides
to help the two anti-Chinese evildoers
to assault the security guards.
And now they send a bouquet and pretend to be innocent.

- (SpeakoutHK @ YouTube) According to Yau Wai-ching and Leung Chung-hang, the chaos today was completely the fault of the Legco president Andrew Leung and the security guards. Well, who were the ones who insulted the oath of office? Who were the ones who barged in and disrupted meetings? Who were the ones who tried to enter the conference room by brute force and caused multiple injuries?

- (Oriental Daily) November 2, 2016.

With a possible National People's Congress Standing Committee interpretation looming up, the Civil Human Rights Front called for a mass demonstration march tonight at 7pm in protest the interference by the Central Government in Hong Kong affairs. The march started off at 740pm to wait for latecomers. They marched from the Chief Executive's Office to the China Liaison Office. About 100 persons participated. They chanted slogans such as "Andrew Leung does not represent me," "Rule of law will be crippled if the law is interpreted," etc.

During the march, one man suddenly charged at the police barricade. The police subdued him and took him away.

- Bwahaha! "About 100 people participated"! The People of Hong Kong have spoken up, and therefore the National People's Congress Standing Committee must accede to the wishes of the People.

- Here is a different newspaper report: (Headline Daily) Several dozen persons participated in the demonstration march. Legislator Alvin Yeung (Civic Party) attended.

- According to the Civil Human Rights Front, 1,600 citizens participated in this demonstration march. These people came from Youngspiration and other non-establishment political parties, and members of the Students Unions at the eight universities. Meanwhile the police estimated a peak of 750 participants.

- The Hong Kong Police were nervous about this march, so the police deployment was actually more than the number of demonstrators!

- (Ta Kung Pao) November 2, 2016.

Basic Law Article 104: When assuming office, the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must, in accordance with law, swear to uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and swear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

It may be that the National People's Congress Standing Committee will interpret the law as saying that a person has one and only one chance to take the oath of office. This means that Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching and Yiu Chung-yim who were fouled out by the Legco secretary-general are now out. Also Lau Siu-lai who was fouled out by Legco president Andrew Leung is also out.

- Here are the chances in a by-election for four open Legco slots.

-- Leung Chung-hang is in the New Territories East geographical constituency. He will face a unified pro-establishment candidate, probably Tang Ka-piu (Federation of Trade Unions). If Leung is the sole candidate, he may lose badly because not many pan-democrats and many of his own supporters will stand for his Shina talk. If there is another pan-democratic candidate, they will cannibalize each other.

-- Lau Siu-lai and Yau Wai-ching are both in Kowloon West geographical constituency. At least one of those seats will be won by the pro-establishment camp, whose candidate will simply run on the bungled oaths of office. For example, if Leung/Yau are said to be merely naive or naughty, then how can you send such elementary schoolchildren to be legislators?

-- Yiu Chung-yim won his sector because two pro-establishment candidates split the votes. He may be facing only one pro-establishment candidate in an by-election for what is traditionally a pro-establishment sector. So his chances are not good.

- (SpeakoutHK @YouTube) Yau Wai-ching said that if the National People's Congress Standing Committee issues an interpretation, it will mean that China has directly taken over Hong Kong. It means that One Country Two Systems no longer exists.

Next is a video showing the exterior of the Legislative Council building, in which the flags of the People's Republic of China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region are flying. Hey, China took over Hong Kong in 1997 already. They did not wait 19 years for Yau Wai-ching to create the opening for them to do so.

Yau Wai-ching said that everything that CY Leung did since the beginning of the year to now was intended to facilitate his re-election as Chief Executive.

Next is a video of the Mong Kok riot, followed by the oaths of office as read by Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching. So now we learn from Yau Wai-ching herself that they started the Mong Kok riot and insulted the Chinese people in their oaths of office in order to get CY Leung re-elected.

Thanks for the clarification. We would never be able to guess otherwise. [By the way, CY Leung has announced that he will not seek re-election.]

- What is the redline for the Chinese Communists? Previously, it is known that the following issues won't tick them off into action:

-- March to vindicate June 4th incident
-- March to end one-party rule in China
-- March to demand resignation of Chief Executive
-- Stopping National Education
-- Occupy Central/Umbrella Movement/Umbrella Revolution
-- Shopping Revolution
-- Anti-parallel trade demonstrations
-- Vetoing constitutional reform of Chief Executive election
-- Mong Kok riot/Fishball Revolution

The two ingredients that ticked off the Chinese Communists this time are:

-- Hong Kong legislators-elect Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching insulted all persons of Chinese descent around the world during the oath of office. If Hong Kong can't take care of this by itself, the Central Government will have to step in to defend the dignity of all persons of Chinese descent.

-- Leung Chung-hang, Yau Wai-ching and their associates (such as Edward Leung, Ray Wong and Chan Ho-tin) are talking about and taking specific actions to promote Hong Kong independence and to link up with other independence movements (Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia).

- (Oriental Daily) November 2, 2016.

- Youngpsiration attempted to charge into the meeting room at least three times today. On the first occasion, Chu Hoi Dick (Land Justice League), Nathan Law (Demosisto), Shiu Ka-chun and Claudia Mo (Civic Party) escorted them.

Last Wednesday, Alvin Yeung (Civic Party), Jeremy Tam (Civic Party) and Yiu Chung-yim were also escorts but they were seated today. What happened? The fact was that Youngspiration decided on the action of the day, and the pan-democrats could choose between cooperation and non-cooperation. They have no input into the decision. Today, Youngspiration did not inform the pan-democrats about their precise plan, even though Yeung and others were going to support them. So this puts Yeung and others in an awkward situation.

Meanwhile the Democratic Party is quickly dissociating with Youngspiration after the clashes. Democratic Party's Helen Wong said: "The Democratic Party did not participate, and does not approve of what Youngspiration did." She said that Youngspiration will have to clean up the mess themselves.

Meanwhile Youngspiration acknowledges that they did not inform the pan-democrats. They said, "the pan-democrats may or may not help out, so there is no need to inform them." They denied that they were toying around with the pan-democrats. So where we stand right now is that the pan-democrats were spun around and around by Youngspiration while the pro-establishment camp thinks that everything is working according to a script.

Earlier a pro-establishment legislator had already revealed the script of the day. He said that the security guards will let Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching charge into the meeting chamber and create chaos. At that time, Legco president Andrew Leung will move the meeting to a conference room and adjourn if necessary. Everything worked out exactly as scripted.

- (Oriental Daily) November 3, 2016. The Democratic Party wants the best of both worlds. On one hand, they condemn the Youngspiration action which puts other people's personal safety in jeopardy. On the other hand, Democratic Party legislators Hui Chi-fung and Kwong Chun-yu (circled in photo below) were involved in the scrimmage. This is a case of split personality.

- (Ta Kung Pao) November 12, 2016.

 On Wednesday, Yau Wai-ching was spotted going to the Hang Seng Bank in a Mercedes-Benz driven by Hong Kong Priority convener Dickson Cheung Hon-yin.

44-year-old Dickson Cheung Hon-yin studied at Polytechnic University. He has two daughters. In 2004, he was the assistant for former Democracy Party legislator Wong Sing-chi. In 2005, he was the assistant to Democratic Party district councilor Yu Chi-sing. Later he switched from the Democratic Party to the Civic Party. In March 2013, the Civic Party announced that Cheung's party membership has been canceled because they haven't been able to reach him. It is rumored that there were some issues related to money.

In April 2013, Cheung founded Hong Kong Priority and he demonstrated with fellow member Billy Chiu Hin-chung at the People's Liberation Army barracks in Tamar.

In 2013, he was sentenced to 7 days in jail for charging into the Legislative Council building to stop the fund allocation for developing Northeast New Territories. In September 2013, Hong Kong Priority was disbanded.

In 2009, Cheung established two companies. One of them is named First Emperor of Sugar which sells desserts in Sheung Shui. Cheung is the major shareholder. The other shareholders included Gene Bond (Civic Party). In 2010, the restaurant went out of business.

Recently Cheung is said to be in bad health. In the previous court case, he pleaded with the magistrate that he is unable to work due to a cardiac problem and his family of four is living off social welfare payments.

Our reporter checked the registration of the Mercedes-Benz that Cheung was driving. That car is under Cheung's name. The registration address is a 600+ sqft luxury apartment in Tai Hang which costs $25,000+ per month to rent. It would seem that Cheung's living standards exceed the limits for social welfare.

- (HKG Pao) Leung Chung-hang has immediately issued a denial: "I am not acquainted with Mr. Cheung Hon-yin. I have no dealings with him before. This is for clarification." He commented: "I know Cheung Sau-yin ... but who is Cheung Hon-yin? This is fictional reporting." "Actually Ta Kung Pao wants you to click through ... as an insider, my professional advice to Tai Kung Pao is to state directly that Leung Chung-hang has surrendered to the Communists, because that will get even more clicks."

"Insider"? Does Leung Chung-hang mean that he is a reporter? Or politician? However, the Tai Kung Pao report only said that Cheung Hon-yin drove Yau Wai-ching to the bank and there is nary a mention about Leung Chung-hang. It never said that Cheung Hon-yin was related to Leung Chung-hang in any way, shape or form. So why is Leung CHung-hang so eager to rush out and issue the denial? Now this is the part that requires more clarification from Leung Chung-hang.

- (Wen Wei Po) November 20, 2016.

On the afternoon of the day before yesterday, Leung-Yau's advisor Lam Ho-ki posted on his Facebook: "The $10,000 donation has been returned in full." He wrote: "Yesterday the Youngspiration PayPal account was not working. Yet many people sent me personal messages to explain that they want to donate cash because this legal case affects the separation of powers in Hong Kong. Therefore I tried to forward the money for them. It turns out that in Hong Kong, raising funds in public requires the checks to clear before the money can be paid. Actually the most important thing should be getting enough money to fight the legal case. Who cares if the Americans are funding bin Laden, or Japan is funding the anti-Japan demonstrations!? Everything was my fault!"

Shortly afterwards Yau Wai-ching posted on her own Facebook: "I have never had any dealings with Dickson Cheung. In the course of our current fund-raising, we will not accept donations from this person, whether directly or indirectly. I have never received any financial or material donations from this individual."

This leads to a Civic Passion-friendly Facebook to say: "We cannot  help but speculate that the person who gave $10,000 to Lam Ho-kei is most likely Dickson Cheung. Lam Ho-kei published the incident, thus forcing Yau Wai-ching to rush out to issue the denial." Wan Chin added: "They even take money awkwardly."

- (Oriental Daily with video) November 2, 2016.

This video taken by some aunties went viral on the Internet. The aunties followed Leung Chung-hang down the street, shouting: "Hey, hey, Shina! Turn yourself around, Shina!" When Leung turned around, the auntie said: "We welcome you, Shina boy!" Leung replied, "How are you?" Then he ignored the auntie and lowered his head to fiddle with his mobile telephone. The auntie proceeded to curse him: "Despicable!" "Running dog!" "Bastard", "Pok gai", "Inhuman", etc.

Soon the aunties were joined by other people around the scene. "Oh, he is the one who called us Shina!" "Pok gai!" Leung said: "Go ahead and scold!" He almost ended up in a physical fight with those present. But since he was outnumbered, he turned around and ran. But he raised his middle finger in order to claim moral victory.

- (Ta Kung Pao) November 5, 2016.

As ordinary housewives, Ms. Cheung, Ms. Wong and Ms. Wong never thought that they would ever become reporters themselves. The photographer that day was Ms. Cheung. "We saw Leung Chung-hang walked by, so we went up to scold him. We wanted to scold this running dog who insulted China and the Chinese people." "When he raised his mobile phone to rush over to us, I was worried that he might attack us!" But Ms. Cheung made sure that she kept filming as they scolded him. Leung Chung-hang also tried to film the women. There was nearly a physical tussle. But other citizens came over to help the three housewives. Leung realized that he was outnumbered and walked away. With his back turned to Ms. Cheung, he raised his middle finger. Everything was recorded by Ms. Cheung's mobile phone. She uploaded the video onto the Internet. So far there has been more than 1 million viewings. Ms Cheung said: "I didn't expect so many people would watch this, or so many people would support us."

- (Oriental Daily) November 9, 2016.

Yesterday Leung Chung-hang posted photos of smiling men and women taking photos of him. Leung commented: "Nowadays the paparazzi are everywhere. They even said that they have my DNA on their clothes so that they can report to the police that I assaulted them. This is really scary."

(Oriental Daily with video) November 9, 2016.

In the evening, a video was posted onto social media. A number of men and women used mobile phones to film Leung Chung-hang on the Wanchai MTR subway platform. Leung was waiting for the train. Several men and women came up to film him. At first Leung did not react much. He merely turned and looked. But a man doing the filming said: "I am saying CHINA, not SHINA. What about it? Is filming not allowed? A Chinese person. Are you a Japanese dog? Are you a Japanese dog? You have studied many books." Another man cursed him: "Rat running across the street! Shina dog!" Then the two men cursed Leung out with obscene language.

Leung took out his own mobile phone to film those men and women. One man said: "Don't touch me! I know the law!" Another man said: "I have your DNA ..." Leung then responded heatedly while pointing his finger: "Go call the police! I am really scared!"

Video without excision of obscene phrases.

- Leung Chung-hang keep saying that he was elected by 37,997 voters and he is responsible to those voters and nobody else. However, those voters are not appearing in numbers to support his Shina talk now. Meanwhile, what is certain is that Leung cannot walk around town without being recognized and cursed out by citizens.

- Leung Chung-hang thus joins the honor roll of those pan-democrats who have been cursed out in the streets.

- Making obscene gestures is the weapon of choice in the war for Hong Kong independence. Here is Leung Chung-hung showing us what he is made of at the Legislative Council.

(Wen Wei Po) November 3, 2016.

- Thanks to the efforts of Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching, Hong Kong is ever closer to achieving independence, as well as having private space to fuck.

(Wen Wei Po) November 2, 2016.

On October 24, Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching traveled to Taiwan to promote independence. When they returned to Hong Kong, Leung went immediately to reassure his girlfriend of more than three years. They had a western meal with white wine. During the meal, the girlfriend asked Leung whether he was unfaithful. Leung was able to make the girlfriend satisfied with his response.

On October 28, Leung attended a discussion forum organized by Hong Kong University's <Undergrad> magazine. Afterwards, he left Hong Kong University with two male friends. Then Leung went with a 40-something-year man to the Breaks bar on Catchick Street, Kennedy Town. The average expenditure there is $100-$200 per head. The two chose window seats. At 1145pm, Yau Wai-ching showed up in a body-hugging black dress. Eventually Yau and Leung said goodbye to their companion and left together in a taxi.

The taxi took them to the Kam Lok Mansion in Wanchai. Yau Wai-ching entered the entrance code and the two went to their rooftop apartment. This apartment was advertised for rent forty days ago for $20,000 per month.

On October 29, Yau and Leung came out of the Kam Lok Mansion at 11:45 am. They had changed their clothes. Yau was nor wearing a white shirt and long dark-green skirt, with a white handbag. She proceeded to attend a neighborhood meeting in To Kwa Wan district. Leung wore a long-sleeved blue shirt, shorts and canvas shoes. He held a laptop computer in his left hand and a mobile phone in his right hand. The two smiled and chatted, but Leung looked tired from lack of sleep.

Yau and Leung went on lunch at a Japanese Restaurant on the tenth floor of QRE Plaza, Queens Road East. The average expenditure here is $400-$800 per head. About one hour later, they came out and went their separate ways. After Leung watched Yau left, he went back to Kam Lok Mansion where he deposited his laptop computer and picked up a thick copy of the book <Western Strategic Thinking>.

At 445pm, Leung went with <Western Strategic Thinking> in one hand and his regular girlfriend in the other hand to watch the movie <Snowden> at MCL Cinema, Causeway Bay. Leung had previously said that his girlfriend is not involved in politics. So he did not appear as vivacious as he was with Yau Wai-ching.

Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching earned $190,360 per month together as Legislative Councilors. They can definitely afford to pay $20,000 for a love nest in Wanchai. Our reporter learned that Leung and Yau are new renters at Kam Lok Mansion.

The apartment that Leung and Yau live in measures 360 square feet. It is valued at $6.3 million. This was a two-room apartment which the owner has turned into an open studio. There is one double bed next to a row of windows.

- Go West, young man! If you don't have a place to fuck, you should become a legislator and then you will have a $20,000-per-month 360-sqft penthouse studio to fuck your brains out!

- Unfortunately, there are only 70 legislative councilors for a population of 7,000,000. Your chances are 70 / 7,000,000 = 1 / 100,000.

However, it is worth a try because it is better than twiddling your thumbs. You can improve your chances by remembering to (1) use foul language; (2) make obscene gestures; (3) wear short skirts and colorful panties.

- (Oriental Daily video) Yau Wai-ching dressed for the occasion. Knowing that there is likely to be some physical clashes, she wore a short dress skirt! Given that she has not many other selling points, we expected nothing less more. Here are some comments:

- This outgoing girl is not afraid of being gawked at. Sooner or later, she'll show us her tits.

- There is nothing to see even if she is totally naked.

- Since when the Hong Kong Politics section of this news website become the Hong Kong Sex section?

- Every week on Wednesday, Yau Wai-ching tries to get an oath of office in; every week on Wednesday, her skirt gets shorter.

- By contrast, Claudia Mo (Civic Party) came in long pants and flat-soled shoes.

And the answer to the big question of the day:

... she wore black panties.

- Good enough to make a Japanese AV? Here are some spoof DVD covers:


"Dirty Men with Big Dicks"/"Dirty Men on Trams" featuring Yau Wai-ching

- She's got company:


"Dirty Men on Trams" featuring Lau Siu-lai

More in

Occupy Central Part 1 (001-100)
Occupy Central Part 2 (101-200)
Occupy Central Part 3 (201-300)
Occupy Central Part 4 (301-400)
Occupy Central Part 5 (401-500)
Occupy Central Part 6 (501-600)
Occupy Central Part 7 (601-700)
Occupy Central Part 8 (701-800)
Occupy Central Part 9 (801-)

Google
Search WWW Search www.zonaeuropa.com